CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd.

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Uthan Educational Society, Faridabad

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaacit Uthan Educational Circle-Ii Society, Faridabad 5E/1A B.P. N.I.T Vs. Faridabad Pan : Aaatu1248C Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ars falling within the period AY 2005-06 to assessment year 2014-15. Although the principle of res judicata is said to not apply in income tax proceedings, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd reported in 281 ITR 346 (Del) has held that for rejecting the view taken in earlier assessment years, there must be material change in the fact, situation or in law. In Radhasoami (Uthan Educational Society) Satsang's case reported in 193 ITR 321 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court declared that although the principles of res judicata do not apply to income-tax proceedings,…

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

…• Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT: 193 HR 321 (SC) • CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.: 358 ITR 295 (SC) • DIT(E) vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council:244 ITR 734 (Del) • CIT vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd.: 245 ITR 492 (Del.) • CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd.: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) • DIT vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) • CIT vs. P. Khrishna Warrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) • CIT vs. Harishchandra Gupta: 132 ITR 799 (Ori) 26. Coming to the issue of invoking of section 50D from first appellate stage by the Ld. CIT (A), Mr. Vohra submitted that the said section does not empower the Assessing Officer…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

…ons reported in CIT vs. Excel Industries (P) Limited: 358 ITR 295 (SC), Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC), DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del), CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 (Del.), CIT v. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H), CIT V. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del.), Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del). Since the issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee own case for the assessment year 2007-08, ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 wherein the Tribunal held that provision for foresee…

Patanjali Yogpeeth (Nyas), Delhi vs. ADIT(Exemption), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

…but in order to maintain consistency, the Revenue cannot be permitted to rake up settled issues. - DIT (E) vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del) - CIT V. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 (Del.) - CIT V. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) - DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) - CIT vs. P. KhrishnaWarrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) - CIT vs. Harishchandra Gupta 132 ITR 799 (Ori) - CIT vs. SewaBharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H) In the impugned order, the CIT(A) did not apply the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang (supra), ob…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―I-2‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hero MotoCorp Limited, JCIT, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi PAN: AAACH0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, M/s. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, M/s. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Page 2 of 484 New Delhi Vs. Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Hero Moto Corp. D…

M/S. Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

…y specified that commission is payable at 5% of the net profits of the company. Thus, the payment was duly approved by the Board of Directors. 17.4 We further find that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd. 281 ITR 346 has held that for rejecting the view taken in earlier assessment years, there must be material change in the fact, situation or in law. In this case, clearly there is neither any change in the fact, situation or in law. We agree with the contention of the assessee that the compensation for both the directors were structured in such a way that apa…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar Ahuja, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

…n on the principle of consistency, no addition is called for and the claim is to be allowed, as held in ‘Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT’, 193 ITR 321 (SC), ‘CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd.’, 245 ITR 492 (Del) and ‘CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd.’, 281 ITR 346 (Del). 15. Still further, evidently, it was not scrutiny assessments for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, that u/s 143 (3) of the Act, these creditors were accepted by the department. Therefore, the facts and circumstances for the year under consideration remaining entirely unchanged, consistency is required to be maintained for the year…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Page 1 of 134 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C.SUDHIR JudicialMember AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, Accountant Member A.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs ACIT 12th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACR0127N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Date of pronouncement 25/04/2016 Assessee by: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.and Ms. Deepanvee Rao,Adv. on corporate tax issues 2. Sh. Rahul Mitra, C.A. with Sh. Derendra Gulari, C.A and Sh. Vinay Verma, C.A. on transfer pricing issues Revenue by: Shri Amrendra Kumar…

V.S.P. Stores Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 V/S V.S.P. Stores Private Limited Dcit, Circle-17 (1), Room Number- 11, Community Centre Saket, 221, Cr Building, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaacv0064A (Respondent) (Appellant)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: 'H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 V/s V.S.P. Stores Private Limited DCIT, circle-17 (1), Room Number- 11, Community Centre Saket, 221, CR building, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN: AAACV0064A (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. BN Goswami, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, Senior DR Date of hearing 16/02/2016 Date of pronouncement 30/03/2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 5th August, 2011 of the Ld. Commissioner…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

…. 1698,1699/2008 vide order date 7/11/2008 has also held on similar line as stated herein above on principle of consistency. (iv) Similar view has been adopted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers P. Ltd., [2006] 281 ITR 346. For ready reference, the relevant ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT part of the Heads note is reproduced below: "……For rejecting the view taken for the earlier assessment years, there must be a material change in the fact situation. 'There was no gainsaying that the previous vi…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

…. 1698,1699/2008 vide order date 7/11/2008 has also held on similar line as stated herein above on principle of consistency. (iv) Similar view has been adopted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers P. Ltd., [2006] 281 ITR 346. For ready reference, the relevant ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT part of the Heads note is reproduced below: "……For rejecting the view taken for the earlier assessment years, there must be a material change in the fact situation. 'There was no gainsaying that the previous vi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Atria Partner, New Delhi

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

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle 31(1) Vs. M/S. Atria Partners, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. [Pan : Aahfa 1305 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A. Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2016 Order Per L.P. Sahu: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Passed By The Learned Cit(A)-Xxvi, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On The Following Grounds :

…thing has been brought on record by the AO to show that the income from house property is actual income from business. 7.4 In this regard, we place reliance upon the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd. 281 ITR 346, wherein it was has held that for rejecting the view taken in earlier assessment years, there must be material change in the fact, situation or in law. We find that in this case there is no change in the facts, situation or in law. Hence, the Revenue cannot be allowed to adopt a different stand. This is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court d…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Jaypee Greens Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

…was allowed. The assessment was done u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. In the present case, we do not find any change in eh (sic) the circumstances, we refer to Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. 281 ITR 346 wherein it was held that when there is absence of any material change in the facts and law, the view taken for earlier year cannot be disturbed. In the present case we find that no such material change has been brought out before us. Since, the depreciation @25% on the said asset has been allowed for A.Y. 2001-02, we do not see any reason to dist…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Jaypee Greens Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

…depreciation @25% was allowed. The assessment was done u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. In the present case, we do not find any change in eh circumstances, we refer to Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. 281 ITR 346 wherein it was held that when there is absence of any material change in the facts and law, the view taken for earlier year cannot be disturbed. In the present case we find that no such material change has been brought out before us. Since, the depreciation @25% on the said asset has been allowed for A.Y. 2001-02, we do not see any reason to dist…