CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions v. Jt. CIT

84 ITD 429Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#9152 most cited

What is CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions v. Jt. CIT authority for?

Revised Accounting Standard 7 (AS-7) cannot be applied retrospectively to an assessee if it was not applicable at the relevant time, and the principle of consistency requires the Revenue to accept the method of accounting consistently followed by the assessee.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. · H.M. Constructions v. Jt. CIT · 84 ITD 429 · revised AS-7 · accounting standard · retrospective application · principle of consistency · method of accounting · revenue

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 132(2)section 132(1)(a)section 145(1)section 153(a)(1)section 250(1)section 45(2)section 211project completion methodsection 145(2)jdasection 52

Judgments citing CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions v. Jt. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 5067/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…in letter dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 addressed to AO. In view of this, revised AS-7 cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on t…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 1155/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…in letter dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 addressed to AO. In view of this, revised AS-7 cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on t…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 109/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…in letter dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 addressed to AO. In view of this, revised AS-7 cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on t…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…in letter dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 addressed to AO. In view of this, revised AS-7 cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on t…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…in letter dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 addressed to AO. In view of this, revised AS-7 cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on t…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…in letter dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 addressed to AO. In view of this, revised AS-7 cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…in letter dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 addressed to AO. In view of this, revised AS-7 cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…in letter dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 addressed to AO. In view of this, revised AS-7 cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…in letter dt. 3rd Sept., 2007 addressed to AO. In view of this, revised AS-7 cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on t…

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kumar Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 605/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit 1(2)(1), M/S Kumar Properties Pvt. R. No. 535, Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakarbhavan, 21, Woundboy Road, M. K. Road, Hazarimalsomani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp-Mumbai Gymkhana, Fort, Mubmai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aabck8464E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : &

For Appellant: ShriDrop Singh MeenaFor Respondent: ShriRajanVora/Shri
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 145(1)

…it is held that Project completion method is recognized method of accounting and can be followed where account books are available. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under: "8. The Tnbunal in the case of H.M. Constructions v. Joint CIT [2003] 84 ITD 429 (Bang.) and this Court in the case of Khoday Distillers Ltd. (supra) has held that the Project Completion method is a recognized method. Once the books of account were maintained, it is the 'Project Completion method' which has to be followed." 35. In view of the above decisions, the Assessee wishes to submit that the project completion method is…

ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata vs. M/S. Salarpuria Simplex Dwelling LLP, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2328/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 250

…in class of business in which assessee adopted, which itself was a recognized method in class of business in which assessee adopted, which itself was a recognized method in class of business in which assessee fell-Held, yes H. M. Constructions v. JCIT (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang.) nstructions v. JCIT (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang.) - It could not be stated that It could not be stated that assessee's method of accounting was prudent in as much as income was accounted assessee's method of accounting was prudent in as much as income was accounted assessee's method of accounting was prudent in as much as income was accounted…

Sohanlal M Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1), Thane

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5776/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5776 & 5777/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09) Shri. Sohanlal M. Jain, बिाम/ ITO 2(1), Thane D-505, Tulip, The Valley of Flower, Thakur Village, v. Kandivali(E), Mumbai- 400101 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AHRPJ4078M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Vimal Punamiya Revenue by : Shri. V. Justin (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 28-02-2018 घोषणा…

CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions v. Jt. CIT (84 ITD 429) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax