What is CIT v. Paul Brothers authority for?

Once a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Paul Brothers?

164 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Paul Brothers (216 ITR 548), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Paul Brothers come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 50C, Section 80IB, Section 14A.

CIT v. Paul Brothers (216 ITR 548)

Antony Waste Handling Cell P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2056/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR

Section 143(3)Section 8Section 80Section 80I

…n facts in the present years as compared to earlier years. Relying on the decision by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Western Outer Interactive Pvt. Ltd., 349 ITR 309, Simple Products Food Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 84 taxmann.com, 239 and CIT v. Paul Brothers, 216 ITR 548, it is argued ITA Nos. 2056/Mum/2015 & Ors 9 M/s Antony Waste Handling Cell that once a deduction has been allowed to an assessee in the initial assessment years, the deduction cannot be disallowed in the subsequent years unless the deduction is so withdrawn from the initial years. It is further explained that the above decisions have been foll…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…ly. The Ld. AR made reference to the decision of the CIT(A) in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1994-95. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj)  CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.)  CIT v Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd: 247 ITR 690 (Guj.)CIT v Fateh Granite (P) Ltd.: 314 ITR 32 (Bom.)  CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd: 349 ITR 309  Direct Information Private Ltd. v. ITO: 15 taxmann.com 63 (Bom)  CIT vs. Escorts Ltd : 338 ITR 435 (Del)  CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (No.2) : 355 ITR 14 (…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…ly. The Ld. AR made reference to the decision of the CIT(A) in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1994-95. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: 123 ITR 669 (Guj)  CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.)  CIT v Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd: 247 ITR 690 (Guj.)CIT v Fateh Granite (P) Ltd.: 314 ITR 32 (Bom.)  CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd: 349 ITR 309  Direct Information Private Ltd. v. ITO: 15 taxmann.com 63 (Bom)  CIT vs. Escorts Ltd : 338 ITR 435 (Del)  CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. (No.2) : 355 ITR 14 (…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4046/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi. And L.T. Foods Ltd., ACIT Unit No. 134, First Floor, Vs. Central Circle-19, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre New Delhi New Delhi. PAN No. AACCA3104G Appellants Respondents Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Smt. Deepashree Rao, CA Shri Vibhu Gupta, CA Reven…

M/S L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 4164/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 14ASection 153ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi. And L.T. Foods Ltd., ACIT Unit No. 134, First Floor, Vs. Central Circle-19, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre New Delhi New Delhi. PAN No. AACCA3104G Appellants Respondents Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Smt. Deepashree Rao, CA Shri Vibhu Gupta, CA Reven…

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 115J

…n. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- i) 355 ITR 14 (Del) CIT v Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. ii) 251 CTR 290 (Del) CIT v Tata Communication Internet Services Ltd. iii) 214 CTR 227 (Del) CIT vs. Jagson International Ltd. iv) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) CIT vs. Paul Brothers. v) 349 ITR 309 (Bom) CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. vi) 349 ITR 150 (Bom) Direct Information (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO vii) 123 ITR 669 (Guj) C.I.T. v Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals. viii) 267 ITR 774 (AP) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO ix) 133 ITR 687 (MP) CIT vs. Bhilai Enginering Corporation x)…

Nilesh Ajitkumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 3(2), Nashik

The appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3488/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…urisdictional High Court, the PCIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. In support of his contention, the ld.Authorized Representative placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers reported as 216 ITR 548(Bom). 3. On the other hand, Shri Rahul Raman, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that in reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has failed to examine interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. The balance sheet of the assessee as on 31/03/2009 shows loan o…

D.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. - 7(2), Mumbai vs. Rajahmundhry Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 6487/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

…submitted, assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IA should be allowed. In support of his contention, leaned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: – i) Radhaswamy Satsangh v/s CIT, [2992] 193 ITR 221 (SC); and ii) CIT v/s Paul Bros., [2995] 216 ITR 548 (Bom.). 9. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, in course of search and seizure operation conducted in case of the assessee as well as GIL incriminating material relating to assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act was found. He submitted, the incriminating material found during the search and seizer operation re…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…Courts, such order cannot be held to be erroneous even if there may be prejudice caused to the Revenue. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Paul Brothers, [2005] 216 ITR 548 (Bom.); iii) Russel Properties Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [1977] 109 ITR 229 (Cal.); and iv) Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2008] 25 SOT 359 (Mum.). 18. The leaned Counsel for the assessee submitted, there is no requirement in law that the Assessing Officer has to pass a detailed order covering all aspects examined during the course of asse…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1050/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…nsistency also, this plea has to be rejected. The said conclusion is duly supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Western Outdoor Interactive P. Ltd. [349 ITR 309] which follows the earlier decision of CIT V/s Paul Brothers [216 ITR 548]. 5.3 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no fault could be found in the impugned order. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. ITA No.1051/Mum/2016 – AY 2010-11 6. Facts as well as grounds of appeal are pari-materia the same in this AY. The learned first appellate authority, has granted relief to the assessee by following…

Mercedes - Benz India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1865/PUN/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

Section 35A

…CP Ltd. (supra) and held that the same is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. According to Ld. AR, therefore, the claim of the assessee should be allowed. Further, referring to the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the claim of deduction u/s.35AB is undisturbed in the first assessment year of the claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act, the AO cannot disturb the similar claim in the subsequent years. On merits of the provisions of section 35AB of the Act, Ld. Counsel analysed the provisions of the said sectio…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. CIT -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3488/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 369Section 369(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3488/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) I.T.A. No.3290/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) I.T.A. No.3380/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) I.T.A. No.4111/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Small Industries Commissioner of Income- Tax-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Development Bank of India, M.K. Road, 4th Floor, Corporate Accounts Mumbai-400020 Department, MSME vs. Development Centre, C-11, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (East), Mumbai-400051 PAN : AABCS 3480N Appellant…

Ass CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raman and Weil P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1953 To 1955/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) Acit-1(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Raman & Weil Pvt. Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. 15, Chetau Marine, B-Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr5065M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. Sindhu Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/Nishant Thakkur/Jasmin Amalsadvala सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita. No.1953/M/2017 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.12.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/NishantFor Respondent: Shri R. Sindhu

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 801B(4)

…not liable to be declined in subsequent year and in this regard we also find support in law settled in CIT Vs. Wester Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. (349 ITA. Nos. 1953 to 1955/Mum/2017 A.Ys.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 IGTR 309)(Bom) & CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (216 ITR 548)(Bom). Moreover, we noticed that the claim of the assessee was also declined on account of this fact that the factory licence was taken on 22.04.2004 but it cannot ground to deny the exemption u/s 80IB and in this regard, we also find support in the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Jolly Polymers Vs. CIT appeal no. 1622 of 2012.…

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6061/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…wer was sold under PPA on fixed unit contract basis. The ld AR argued that once the deduction is allowed in the initial assessment year, the same can not be withdrawn in the subsequent years by placing reliance on the following decisions:- a) CIT Vs Paul Bros 216 ITR 548 (Bom) b) CIT Vs Fateh Granite (P) Ltd 314 ITR 32 (Bom) c) CIT Vs A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del) d) Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 123 ITR 669 (Guj) e) CIT Vs Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt Ltd 254 CR 593 (Bom) f) CIT Vs Tata Communication Internet Services Ltd. 251 CTR 290 (Del) g) IAC Vs Hoechst India Ltd 32 I…