CIT v. Narendra Doshi (257 ITR 59)

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

…nvestors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT [2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263 ITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi), Dhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT v. Shiv Sagar Estate [2002] 257 ITR 59 (SC) and Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC). In our opinion, there was no good and justifiable cause to take a different view and conclude in the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration that the AY 1996-97 was the first year when the assessee started providing telecommunication services, without there be…

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

…nvestors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT [2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263 ITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi), Dhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT v. Shiv Sagar Estate [2002] 257 ITR 59 (SC) and Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC). In our opinion, there was no good and justifiable cause to take a different view and conclude in the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration that the AY 1996-97 was the first year when the assessee started providing telecommunication services, without there be…

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. S D Material Handlers Private Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…99/SRT/2023 A.Y. 13-14 M/s S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. (1) Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 117 Taxman 375/249 ITR 219 (SC) (2) CIT v. Narendra Doshi [2002] 122 Taxman 717/254 ITR 606 (SC) (3) CIT v. Shivsagar Estate [2002] 124 Taxman 606/257 ITR 59 (SC) 31. The above judgements of the Supreme Court show the anxiety to prevent the income- tax authorities from taking different stand in the case of different assessee in respect of the same issue or taking different stands in the case of the same assessee for different assessment years in respect of the same issue. 32. The Supreme Court in the c…

ACIT-8 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5754/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-8(1)(1) M/S Royal Western Turf Club Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Limited, Mahalaxmi Race Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Course, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…(AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vi. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) vii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 2.5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to be followed and once in a particular yea…

Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

ITA 534/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…ilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As r…

Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

ITA 533/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…ilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As r…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 375/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…ilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As r…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 374/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…ilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As r…

Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 10(1), Kolkata

ITA 2116/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…ilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As r…

DCIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western Indua Turf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3237/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt Mamta Bansal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Salis Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…(SC) ITA Nos. 3237 /Mum/2017 M/s. Royal Western India turf Club Ltd., Mumbai. viii Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 2.5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis of principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to be followed and once in a particular yea…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2375/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…sessment Year 2011-12, the TPO did not impute any interest on outstanding receivables and as such, principle of consistency needs to be followed and relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) & Union of India vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC). 19. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the AO/CIT(A). 20. When undisputedly identical issue has already been decided by the TPO in favour of the taxpayer by not imputing any interest on outstanding receivables, t…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2374/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…sessment Year 2011-12, the TPO did not impute any interest on outstanding receivables and as such, principle of consistency needs to be followed and relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) & Union of India vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC). 19. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the AO/CIT(A). 20. When undisputedly identical issue has already been decided by the TPO in favour of the taxpayer by not imputing any interest on outstanding receivables, t…

Raj Pal Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Haryana

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

C.A. No.-002416-002416 - 2010Supreme Court25 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 256(1)Section 4Section 45Section 6

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2416 OF 2010 RAJ PAL SINGH …..APPELLANT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ....RESPONDENT HARYANA, ROHTAK JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J. PRELIMINARY AND BRIEF OUTLINE 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 in Income Tax Reference No. 53-A of 1991 whereby the High Court, while answering the…