CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad)

242 ITR 691High Court#3459 most cited

What is CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad) authority for?

A wrong decision, even if followed in earlier years, cannot be perpetuated on the basis of the principle of consistency if it contravenes the correct law and facts.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd · 242 ITR 691 · principle of consistency · wrong decision · correct law · tax matters

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 255(4)Section 28(i)Section 10AASection 10DSection 144C(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 3asection 10(20a)section 13(2)(c)section 10(20)section 288asection 13(1)(c)(ii)advancement of general public utilitysection 13(8)section 140asection 28(i)revision under section 263section 13(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad)

Gowtham Residential Junior College, Vijayawada vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 26/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 255(4)

…at if the claim was not questioned in the earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contest that the correct law should not be applied during the current year as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd (Mad) 242 ITR 691. He has also relied upon the following decisions: 10. There is no hindrance in taking a decision as per correct law and facts and therefore, a wrong decision cannot be perpetuated as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Page No. 17 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College (Baroda) (P) Ltd vs. CIT (…

Gowtham Residential Junior College, Vijayawada vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 25/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2013-14) Gowtham Residential Junior College V. Asst. Cit-Central Circle Vijayawada 1-87, Gudavalli Village Gudavalli, Vijayawada – 521104 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaefg4399L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 255(4)

…at if the claim was not questioned in the earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contest that the correct law should not be applied during the current year as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd (Mad) 242 ITR 691. He has also relied upon the following decisions: 10. There is no hindrance in taking a decision as per correct law and facts and therefore, a wrong decision cannot be perpetuated as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Page No. 17 I.T.A.Nos.25 & 26/VIZ/2022 Gowtham Residential Junior College (Baroda) (P) Ltd vs. CIT (…

Ych Logistics India Private Limited, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1330/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Kumar Jain, CA by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 250Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…ta and the principle of consistency is not applicable to the instant case. At this juncture reference is made to few cases in which it has been held that the principle of res judicata is not applicable for tax matters:  CITv. Seshasayee industries Ltd[(Mad) 242 ITR 691]  Ace Investments (P) Ltd v. CIT [(Mad) 244 ITR 166]  M.M. lpoh &Ors. v. CIT [(SC) 67 ITR 106]  New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltdv. CIT[(SC) 49 ITR 137] :-26-: ITA. No: 1330/Chny/2023  Bharat Sanchar Nijam Ltd &Ors v. UOI &Ors. [(SC) 282 ITR 273] 15. Thus, the ld.DR submitted that the claim of the assessee for deduction under Sec 10AA of the…

Mmti'S Education & Research Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 451/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

…d. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 IT. in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 IT. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) other case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) other case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that 'the fact that its claim 242 ITR 691, it was further held that 'the fact that its claim 242 ITR 691, it was further held that 'the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the…

Mmtis Education and Research Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2974/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

…d. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 IT. in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 IT. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) other case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) other case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that 'the fact that its claim 242 ITR 691, it was further held that 'the fact that its claim 242 ITR 691, it was further held that 'the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the…

Mmtis Eduction & Research Trust, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) I(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5866/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

…d. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 IT. in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 IT. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) other case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) other case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that 'the fact that its claim 242 ITR 691, it was further held that 'the fact that its claim 242 ITR 691, it was further held that 'the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Al Nasir Agro Foods, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4327/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4327/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs Al Nasir Agro Foods, Circle-50(1), Sf-3, Western Chambers, 7A/42, New Delhi W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaofa8242N

For Appellant: Sh. Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 40A

…ing the fact that its claim was not questioned in subsequent years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the earlier AY. Reliance can be placed in this regard in the case of CIT vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad) 242 ITR 691. (5) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the facts that the assessee was unable to submit even a single shred of proper bills/PAN/address of the creditors and vouchers of the purchase made on credit during assessment proceedings. (6) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the assessee was unable to justify the purchas…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. The ACIT(Exemption) Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1998/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…cy' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 ITR. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 700/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…cy' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 ITR. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2075/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…cy' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 ITR. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1077/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…cy' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 ITR. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5086/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…cy' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 ITR. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2240/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…cy' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 ITR. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1806/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…cy' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Union of India (S.C) 282 ITR. In another case of CIT Vs Seshasayee Industries Ld. (Mad.) 242 ITR 691, it was further held that the fact that its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. and in the case of Ace Investments (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (Mad) 244 ITR 166 it was held that facts can be Slum Rehabilitation Authority A.Y. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Blend Colours Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1185/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…milar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 137, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273. Further in the case of CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Madras) 242 ITR 691, It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that the fact that if :- 14 -: Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. claim was questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law would not be applied during the course of assessment year. Further it is noted that there is a legal issue involved regarding non- availability of…

Blend Colours Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1137/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Pan – Aaccb 2492 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 2492 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sidharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri A. Sitarama Rao Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…milar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 137, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273. Further in the case of CIT v. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Madras) 242 ITR 691, It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that the fact that if :- 14 -: Blend Colours Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. claim was questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law would not be applied during the course of assessment year. Further it is noted that there is a legal issue involved regarding non- availability of…

DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4065/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 154Section 25

…following case laws :- • Dhondiram Dalichand Vs. CIT (81 ITR 609) • Daman Metallic Oxides Vs. CIT (ITA no. 7573/Mum/2011 dt. 23.5.2013) • CIT Vs. Thobhandas Jivanlal Gajjar (109 ITR 296) • M.M. Ipoh Vs. CIT (67 ITR 106) • CIT Vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (242 ITR 691) • Dashmesh Transport Co.(P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (125 ITR 681) • Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (70 ITD 406) 10. Per contra, learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that this system has been followed for almost fifteen years and the Revenue has not objected. Learned Counsel further submitted that section 145(1) of the Act does not provide…

State Bank of India, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward- 3(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1640/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 10(5)Section 133(6)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…e to income tax proceedings as each assessment year is a separate proceedings. The appellant’s claim for applying the principle of consistency is also not sustainable in light of the following judicial decisions: i) In CIT vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad) 242 ITR 691, the Madras High Court held that the fact its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. ii) In Indian Vaccines Corporation Ltd. vs. ITO 2010-TIOL-587 ITAT Del and in Jat Education Society vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 10 :- 4 -: taxmann.com 127, it was hel…

State Bank of India, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, (TDS), Ward- 3(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

ITA 1604/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt R. Premi. JCITFor Respondent: 28.11.2019
Section 10(5)Section 133(6)Section 201(1)

…proceedings. The appellant’s claim for applying the :- 6 -: ITA Nos.1578 to 1581/Bang/2019 & 1602 to 1604/Bang/2019 principle of consistency is also not sustainable in light of the following judicial decisions: i) In CIT vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad) 242 ITR 691, the Madras High Court held that the fact its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. ii) In Indian Vaccines Corporation Ltd. vs. ITO 2010-TIOL-587 ITAT Del and in Jat Education Society vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 10 taxmann.com 127, it was held that a…

State Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, (TDS), Ward- 3(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessees are

ITA 1603/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt R. Premi. JCITFor Respondent: 28.11.2019
Section 10(5)Section 133(6)Section 201(1)

…proceedings. The appellant’s claim for applying the :- 6 -: ITA Nos.1578 to 1581/Bang/2019 & 1602 to 1604/Bang/2019 principle of consistency is also not sustainable in light of the following judicial decisions: i) In CIT vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd. (Mad) 242 ITR 691, the Madras High Court held that the fact its claim was not questioned in earlier years does not entitle the assessee to contend that the law should not be applied during the current A.Y. ii) In Indian Vaccines Corporation Ltd. vs. ITO 2010-TIOL-587 ITAT Del and in Jat Education Society vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 10 taxmann.com 127, it was held that a…