CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.

228 ITR 463Supreme Court of India1997#318 most cited

What is CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

262

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. · Hero Cycles · 228 ITR 463 · 94 Taxmann 271 · mistake apparent on record · rectification · point not examined · facts or law · Section 143(3) · Section 14A

Also reported as

94 Taxmann 271

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 115JBSection 14ASection 153DSection 153B(1)(b)Section 250Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 234e(1)installation pesection 119(1)use of equipmentsection 253(2)dependent agent pesection 119(2)(a)section 44dagency peservice pefunctional analysissection 200a(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Star Light Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6070/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Superstar Agency Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5832/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5831/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5744/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 5742/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5741/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad

ITA 5740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appellant company • CIT V Hero Cycles Ltd&Ors is only routing (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) transactions of alleged • CIT V Stepwell Industries Bhushan Steel Ltd. and not Limited &Ors (1997) 228 the ultimate beneficiary. It ITR 171 (SC) has further passed on • SumatiDayal V CIT (1976) funds to other companies. 113 ITR 522 (Del). (Para 7.3 & 7.8, page 23 & • R Dalmia V CIT (1976) 113 24) ITR 522 (Delhi)  CIT(A) deleted addition of…

Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 2389/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tention of the Ld. D.R. is that the CIT(A) has no power u/s 154 of the Act so as to recall the his own order for all these assessment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 1633/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tention of the Ld. D.R. is that the CIT(A) has no power u/s 154 of the Act so as to recall the his own order for all these assessment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 1632/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tention of the Ld. D.R. is that the CIT(A) has no power u/s 154 of the Act so as to recall the his own order for all these assessment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 1631/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tention of the Ld. D.R. is that the CIT(A) has no power u/s 154 of the Act so as to recall the his own order for all these assessment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 1630/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tention of the Ld. D.R. is that the CIT(A) has no power u/s 154 of the Act so as to recall the his own order for all these assessment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are o…

Saraca Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1166/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Saraca Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccs 8240 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Muzumdar Date Of Hearing: 16/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Muzumdar
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Saraca Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCS 8240 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue by: Shri Rohit Muzumdar Date of hearing: 16/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 23/02/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) – 3, Hyderabad’s order dated 17/05/2019…

The DDIT(It)-1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Asia Today Ltd (Formerly Winter Heath Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed as infructuous and all the four cross objections are allowed

ITA 5042/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2005-2006

…istration of law by all the income-tax authorities in a specific situation and, therefore, validly issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act. As such, the circular would be binding on the department." (p. 901) See also CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC). It would thus be clear that the Circular No. 23 would be binding on the Assessing Officer and had to be considered while assessing the tax liability of an assessee. The Tribunal in its judgment has not considered the effect of the finding recorded by the CIT (Appeals) based on the Circular and which circular was relevant for the purpose of…

The ADIT(It)-1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed as infructuous and all the four cross objections are allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2004-2005

…istration of law by all the income-tax authorities in a specific situation and, therefore, validly issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act. As such, the circular would be binding on the department." (p. 901) See also CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC). It would thus be clear that the Circular No. 23 would be binding on the Assessing Officer and had to be considered while assessing the tax liability of an assessee. The Tribunal in its judgment has not considered the effect of the finding recorded by the CIT (Appeals) based on the Circular and which circular was relevant for the purpose of…

The ADIT(It)-1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed as infructuous and all the four cross objections are allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2002-2003

…istration of law by all the income-tax authorities in a specific situation and, therefore, validly issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act. As such, the circular would be binding on the department." (p. 901) See also CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC). It would thus be clear that the Circular No. 23 would be binding on the Assessing Officer and had to be considered while assessing the tax liability of an assessee. The Tribunal in its judgment has not considered the effect of the finding recorded by the CIT (Appeals) based on the Circular and which circular was relevant for the purpose of…

M/S. Mac Industries, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Vapi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…rom any mistake apparent from the record and there can be no question of exercising the power under Section 154 for rectifying such an intimation. 10. He reminds us referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 / 94 Taxman 271 and Deva Metal Powders (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax [2008] 2 SCC 439 that rectification under Section 154 can only be made if there is a glaring mistake of fact and law but not if the question is debatable. A point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt with as a mistake apparent from the record within th…