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 548High Court1995#594 most cited

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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Paul Brothers · Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 · section 80IA · section 80IB · initial assessment year · deduction subsequent years · estoppel · denial of deduction · withdrawal of relief · recurring deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 50C Section 80IB Section 14A Section 131 Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(4)section 80ib(2)section 2(29ba)section 11b initial assessment year section 80ia(4)(i)section 36(l)(iii)section 36(l)section 80j deduction under section 80ia section 80ib section 80ia(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Paul Brothers

DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon vs. M/S. Msv International Inc., Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2187/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Panda

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-2187/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) DCIT (International Taxation) vs MSV International Inc. Circle-Gurgaon, D-7, South City-1 307, HSIDC building, Udyog Gurgaon-122002 Vihar-V PAN AADCM1304M Gurgaon Revenue by Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. (DR) Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Shri Ashish Goel, CA, Ms. Surbhi Goel, CA, Shri Kislaya Parashar, Advocate Date of Hearing 03.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2019 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the asse…

Hindumal Blmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 266/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 266 & 267/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

Section 80I

…the facts in the subsequent assessment years, i.e. A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel brought our attention to various decisions including the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paul Brothers reported in 216 ITR 548. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.20854/2017 and others, dated 05-12-2017 (reported in 88 taxmann.com. 69 (SC). Ld. DR submitted that this judgment is given in the context of denial deduction u/s.80IB of the Act…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR

Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…d or changed on valid grounds. But without disturbing the relief granted in the initial year, the Income-tax Officer cannot examine the question again and decide to withhold or withdraw the relief which has been already once granted.” - CIT v. Paul Brothers: 216 ITR 548 (Bom.) “Either in section80HH or in section80J, there is no provision for withdrawal of special deduction for the subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income-tax Officer could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years. (See Gujarat High Co…

Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…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 sec…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Krystal Colloids P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3170/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Krystal Colloids Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 15(2)(1) Room Vs. 119, Purusharth Bldg., Nawroji No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Hill Road, No. 2, Dongri, Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai, 400009. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacck5409J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 47

…In that case, the AO had raised the issue of splitting up or reconstruction of already existing business in the subsequent year, when in the first year of claim this issue was not disturbed. Again, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom), Direct Information (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2011) 203 Taxman 70 (Bom) has held that once a benefit of deduction was extended in respect of a provision for a particular number of years then unless the benefit is withdrawn for the first year, it cannot be withdrawn subsequent years, particularly, when there is no change in the facts. In view of the…

ACIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemical Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is dismissed

ITA 5650/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Circle-2(3)(1), M/S Tata Chemical Ltd. R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Bombay House, 24, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabct4059M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Atul T. Suraiya, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Atul T. Suraiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

…. In that case, the AO had raised the issue of splitting up or reconstruction of already existing business in the subsequent year, when in the first year of claim this issue was not disturbed. Again the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom), Direct Information (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2011) 203 Taxman 70 (Bom) has held that once a benefit of deduction was extended in respect of a provision for a particular number of years then unless the benefit is withdrawn for the first year, it cannot be withdrawn subsequent years, particularly, when there is no change in the facts. 7.3 Facts being…

ITO 8(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vaman Realtors P.Tld, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3026/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-8(3)(4) M/S Vaman Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, (Now Known As Atul Resorts & Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Hospitality India Pvt. Ltd. 400020. Mumbai) 501-503, Trade Avenue, 5Th Floor, Suren Road, Off Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccv9048G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITO-8(3)(4) M/s Vaman Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 202, 2nd floor, (Now known as Atul Resorts & Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Hospitality India Pvt. Ltd. 400020. Mumbai) 501-503, Trade Avenue, 5th floor, Suren Road, Off Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AACCV9048G Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. V. Justin, DR Assessee by : Mr. Vijay Mehta, AR Date of Hearing : 23/05/2018 Date of pronouncement: 22.06.2018 OR…

Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1225/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1225/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacj 6577 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Chatorvedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…s not under appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no jurisdiction lies with the Commissioner to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers reported in 216 ITR 548 (Bom) for the proposition that the order of the assessing officer, based on the decision of the High Court, cannot be revised. He prayed that these directions of the ld. CIT be vacated. 6. The ld. CIT DR on the other hand submitted that the issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of…

ACIT - 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sonata Software Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6463/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2)(2) Sonata Software Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.348, 3Rd Floor 208, T.V. Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, M.K Road Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Worli, Mumbai 400 030 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcs8459D याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 21/03/2018

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 40Section 9

…nt years. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd., 123 ITR 669 (Guj) and also on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul Brothers, 216 ITR 548 (Bom). 4. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. It is the say of the Ld. DR that the AO has specifically pointed out the distinguishing facts. Ld. CIT(A) has also elaborately discussed the distinguishing facts and, therefore, findings of earlier years cannot be taken into consideration for the year under con…

ITO, Chennai vs. A. Jagadeeswari, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 245/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.245/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) C.O. No. 30/Mds/2017 (In I.T.A. No.245/Mds/2017) Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, Vs The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : 20.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: 20.09.2017For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 80I

…ns specified in the said section. Hence, it is noticed that the issue has reached finality and the project of the assessee has been held to be eligible for deduction u/s.80-IB(10). 44. The Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income tax v Paul 8rothers [1995]216 ITR 548 (Nagpur) held in the context of Section 80HH and 80 J that there was no provision either in Section 80HH or 80J for withdrawal of special deduction for CO No. 30/Mds/2017 the subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Once the relief was confirmed for earlier years, the Income tax Officer could not withhold the relief for subsequent year…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4822/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Co No.193/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year :2002-03) Ito 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., R.No.552, Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Mumbai 24, Homi Modi Street Fort, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaact2727Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 41

…Deduction U/S 35DDA is allowed for a period of 5 years. Once a deduction has been allowed, it cannot be denied in subsequent assessment years unless deduction granted earlier is withdrawn. For this Reliance is placed on the following: 1. CIT v Paul Brothers (216 ITR 548) (Bom) 2. CIT v/s Modi Industries Limited (327 ITR 570)(Del) 3. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd., vs. CIT (123 ITR 669) (Guj) 34. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. Section 43(2) defines the word 'paid' to mean 'actually paid or incurred according to the method of accou…

Mcleod Russel India Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 682/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mcleod Russel India Ltd. -Vs.- D. C.I.T., Circle-4 (1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6918 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri D.S.Damle, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, ARFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…rding substantial expansion, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. ACIT vs Delhi Press Patra Prakashan 355 ITR 14 (Delhi) 2. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical vs CIT 123 ITR 669 (Guj) 3. CIT vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. 216 ITR 548 (Bom) 16. The last submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the decision which the AO/CIT(A) rendered on deduction u/s 80IE of the Act in the case of Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd was contrary to the view taken by CIT(A)-IV, Kolkata in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 wherein a view was expressed that the substantial…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd

ITA/1082/2005HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…________________________________________________________________________________ ITA Nos.1082/2005; 690/2008; ITA 225/2009; 1189/2009 & 251/2010 Page 1 of 45 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1082/2005 Reserved on: 4th May, 2017 Decision on: July 20, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel versus INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate wi…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. International Tractors Ltd

ITA/690/2008HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) vs. International Tractors Limited

ITA/1189/2009HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Syndicate Bank, Manipal

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1188/BANG/2016[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2017AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Nataraj, DCIT & Shri SiddappajiFor Respondent: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha R, CAs

Section 244A(1)Section 244A(2)

…paid loses its identity the moment it was adjusted towards the tax liability created under the regular assessment and took the shape of payment of tax in pursuance of order of assessment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (216 ITR 548) upheld the above principle by holding that the amount of advance tax and tax deducted at source must be treated as payment of income-tax pursuant to order of assessment as and when these amounts were set off against demands raised against assessment order i.e. from the date of assessment order. The relevant para is extracted below: “If any tax…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…efit allowed in earlier year cannot be denied in subsequent years. 1. RadhaSoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1992]193 ITR 321 (SC)/[1991] 100 CTR 267 (SC) 2 CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. [349 ITR 309] [BOMBAY] 3 CIT v. Paul Brothers. [216 ITR 548] [BOMBAY] M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., 4. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 (Bombay)/[2015] 232 Taxman 406 (Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [327 ITR 570] [DELHI] 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013]355 ITR 14 (Delhi)/[2013] 260 CTR 253 (Delhi) 7. Sauras…

Durable Ispat & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 758/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Durable Ispat & Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Pan: Aaics6279A) Kolkata-1, Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he Ld. AR that when the AO had taken a probable view by following a binding precedent, invoking jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT does not arise. For this proposition, he placed reliance on a decision reported in CIT Vs. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom). 8. Para no. 6 of the order of ITO reads that AO has failed to deal with the specific facts of the case as per law and has not scrutinized/verified the details in respect of the issues raised i.e. disputed compensation charged under the head in selling and distribution expenses u/s. 37(1) of the Act and it appeared to be erroneous insofar a…

Addl CIT Cen Cir IX, Mumbai vs. Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed of in terms

ITA 8503/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35E

…filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It was claimed that if there is recurring issue and, if allowed in first year, then in the later year, the relief cannot be denied. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and CIT vs Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 309 (Bom.) and also the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No.3285 & 5087/Mum/2007 for Assessment year 2001-02 & 2002-03 in the case of assessee itself, order dated 25/02/2009. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR and he merely relied upon the impugned order.…