Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

155 ITR 120Supreme Court of India1985#386 most cited

What is Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

For computing the deduction under Section 80M, only the net dividend income (gross dividend income after reducing expenses attributable to earning it, as per Section 57(iii) and the principle in Section 80AB) is eligible. The case also holds that tax authorities are not bound to perpetuate an error from a previous assessment year, as each year is a separate unit and consistency cannot override substantive justice.

229

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India · 155 ITR 120 · Section 80M deduction · net dividend income · expenses attributable to dividend · Section 80AB · Section 57(iii) · consistency principle · perpetuate error · assessment year separate unit · judicial conscience · dividend income

Also reported as

1 SCC 4347 CTR 349

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153DSection 1961Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 50(1)section 80absection 80msection 243section 54esection 10(33)section 10(15)section 245hacasus omissussection 14a(1)section 54ec

Judgments citing Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.Commr.of Income Tax, Spl. RG.32, Mumbai

ITA 202/MUM/2004[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…er the provisions of the Act. For reversal of his finding ct. For reversal of his finding, the Ld. AO relied on the decision of the relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Baroda ltd reported in 155 ITR 120 Distributors Baroda ltd reported in 155 ITR 120 Distributors Baroda ltd reported in 155 ITR 120, wherein it is held that held that to perpetuate an error is no heroism heroism. M/s Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.. M/s Nuclear Power Corporatio ITA Nos. 202, 114, 4413/M/2004, 3867/M/2008, 4743 to 4745/M/2007, 3867/M/2008, 4743 to 4745/M/2…

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT(OSD) Range 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 114/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

…er the provisions of the Act. For reversal of his finding ct. For reversal of his finding, the Ld. AO relied on the decision of the relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Baroda ltd reported in 155 ITR 120 Distributors Baroda ltd reported in 155 ITR 120 Distributors Baroda ltd reported in 155 ITR 120, wherein it is held that held that to perpetuate an error is no heroism heroism. M/s Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.. M/s Nuclear Power Corporatio ITA Nos. 202, 114, 4413/M/2004, 3867/M/2008, 4743 to 4745/M/2007, 3867/M/2008, 4743 to 4745/M/2…

Shriram Capital Private Limited(Formerly Known As Shriram Financial Ventures(Chennai) Private Limited), Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Cirlcle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 813/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 813/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shriram Capital Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Shriram V. Income Tax, Financial Ventures (Chennai) Corporate Circle 3(1), Private Limited) Chennai. Shriram House No. 4, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aapcs-5667-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80M

…f the appellant's claim that :-3-: ITA. No: 813/Chny/2023 only expenditure of Rs.17,925/- & Rs.63,412 respectively was incurred to earn exempt income. 8. The CIT(A) erred in relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Distributiors ( Baroda) Pvt Ltd 155 ITR 120 SC and Maganlal chhaganlal Pvt Ltd 236 ITR 456 Bombay HC wherein the issue involved was deduction u/s.80M whereas in the appellant's case the issue involved is deduction u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D. 9. The CIT(A) erred in relying the ITAT Hyderabad's decision in the case of Chintalapatti Holdings Pvt Ltd 146 Taxmann.com 305 and stating that in that case…

Teradata India Pvt Ltd, Grugram vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

…). He argued that an error which had occurred in the earlier order of the Tribunal need not be perpetuated. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 155 ITR 120, wherein, it was held that “To perpetuated an error is no heroism. To rectify the same is the compulsion of judicial conscience”. Accordingly, he argued that the issue in dispute should be viewed independently for the years under consideration dehors the decision taken consistently by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee. 10. At the outset, w…

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1430/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

…). He argued that an error which had occurred in the earlier order of the Tribunal need not be perpetuated. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 155 ITR 120, wherein, it was held that “To perpetuated an error is no heroism. To rectify the same is the compulsion of judicial conscience”. Accordingly, he argued that the issue in dispute should be viewed independently for the years under consideration dehors the decision taken consistently by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee. 10. At the outset, w…

Teradata India P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1248/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

…). He argued that an error which had occurred in the earlier order of the Tribunal need not be perpetuated. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 155 ITR 120, wherein, it was held that “To perpetuated an error is no heroism. To rectify the same is the compulsion of judicial conscience”. Accordingly, he argued that the issue in dispute should be viewed independently for the years under consideration dehors the decision taken consistently by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee. 10. At the outset, w…

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 1113/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. Dcit 2(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Icic Bank Towers, North East Wing, Ground Floor, Bandra Room No. 552, Maharishi Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Karve Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K. C. Selvamani, DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 32

…n value of the block of assets in subsequent year, he held that the rule of consistency is neither absolute nor infallible relying on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Distributors Baroda private limited versus Union of India and others [155 ITR 120] wherein it has been held that if any wrong has been committed, same should not be perpetuated. 010. Accordingly, he upheld the denial of claim of depreciation on the impugned goodwill. 011. Assessee is aggrieved with that and is in appeal before us. Assessee submitted a paper book containing 50 pages wherein assessee submitted the details of d…

DCIT- Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Itd Cementation India Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 642/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle- M/S Itd Cementation India 5(1), Ltd., Vs. Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, National Plastic Building, A- Air India Building, Nariman Subhash Road, Paranjape B Point, Scheme, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaact 1426 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Prakash Rastogi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 37

…unsel of the assessee is concerned, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. 155 ITR 120 has held that there is no heroism in continuing the 155 ITR 120 has held that there is no heroism in continuing the 155 ITR 120 has held that there is no heroism in continuing the error and it should be rectified at earliest. error and it should be rectified at earliest. Accordingly Accordingly, we reject the contention of the assessee for allowi…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

…2006- 07 and these crucial facts have not been taken into the account in the earlier decisions delivered by the appellate authority in various assessment years. I rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baroda Distilleries reported in 155 ITR 120 where the Hon'ble Court held that "to perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of the Judicial conscience." 10. In view of the above, the original order of the Hon'ble ITAT cannot be followed and the case may be decided considering the above facts and circumstance, on which basis the assessee is not entitled for deductio…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

…2006- 07 and these crucial facts have not been taken into the account in the earlier decisions delivered by the appellate authority in various assessment years. I rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baroda Distilleries reported in 155 ITR 120 where the Hon'ble Court held that "to perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of the Judicial conscience." 10. In view of the above, the original order of the Hon'ble ITAT cannot be followed and the case may be decided considering the above facts and circumstance, on which basis the assessee is not entitled for deductio…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 539/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

For Appellant: ShriJ.G. Pendse, ARFor Respondent: ShriM.M. Chate, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92(2)Section 92B

…ure was definitely attributable towards earning of this dividend income and that had to be deducted while allowing deduction under section 80M" Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. 155 ITR 120 and Bombay High Court in the case of Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 456, which has expressed a similar view, that expenditure may be attributable to earning of dividend income. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. 12 SOT 248, the relevant portion contai…

Bombay Footwear Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1645/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 1645@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Bombay Footwear Private Limited Deonar Village, Behind Telecom Factory, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb2162P Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR &
Section 142(1)Section 263

…e of res judicata do not apply in income tax proceedings, nevertheless, where there is no change in the facts and circumstances from the preceding assessment year, the Rule of Consistency cannot be ignored (Re. Distributors Baroda (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, 155 ITR 120 (SC) and Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321 (SC)) 12. The Revenue has raised another objection that there is no discussion in the assessment order with respect to genuineness of the capital gains for which the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. Undisputedly, in the assessment order, there is no discussion with respect to th…

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3108/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

…ng doing and now you cannot do anything” is not acceptable, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Phool Chand Bajranglal {110 ITR 834(SC)}. Further, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Baroda Pvt. Ltd. {155 ITR 120(SC)}, that to perpetuate an error is no heroism. Therefore, once an error / wrong doing is detected, the full force of law has to be applied to remedy / rectify the situation/default. As such, this plea of the appellant is not judicially acceptable. Genuineness of transaction is not a valid plea, as even in genuine transactions, transacting in ca…

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3107/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

…ng doing and now you cannot do anything” is not acceptable, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Phool Chand Bajranglal {110 ITR 834(SC)}. Further, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Baroda Pvt. Ltd. {155 ITR 120(SC)}, that to perpetuate an error is no heroism. Therefore, once an error / wrong doing is detected, the full force of law has to be applied to remedy / rectify the situation/default. As such, this plea of the appellant is not judicially acceptable. Genuineness of transaction is not a valid plea, as even in genuine transactions, transacting in ca…

ACIT -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao
Section 14A

…fication n error. Hon’ble Supreme Court Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case for perpetuating an error. of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (1985) 47 (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India CTR (SC) 349 : (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) CTR (SC) 349 : (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), observed as follows : , observed as follows : "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort compulsion of…

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1794/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 253Section 80G

…P. Ltd.; A.Y. 11-12 therefore, ever ready to learn: great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead : and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors [Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC)] 040. Accordingly, we hold that only arithmetic mean of the prices of brokerage should be taken and not weighted average of such prices todetermine Arm’s length price of the International Transaction. Directions of the LD DRP are unsustainable in law. 041. The Appeal of the LD AO is allowed. 042. Accordingly both the appeal and CO for AY…

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1715/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 253Section 80G

…P. Ltd.; A.Y. 11-12 therefore, ever ready to learn: great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead : and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors [Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC)] 040. Accordingly, we hold that only arithmetic mean of the prices of brokerage should be taken and not weighted average of such prices todetermine Arm’s length price of the International Transaction. Directions of the LD DRP are unsustainable in law. 041. The Appeal of the LD AO is allowed. 042. Accordingly both the appeal and CO for AY…

ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Variety Services Noida P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6461/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

…hout appreciating the judgment of Hon’ble 2 Variety Services Noida P. Ltd. Delhi High Court in M/s Krishakbharati Cooperative Ltd. (2012) 23 taxman.com 265 (Delhi) and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Distributors (Boaroda) (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120/22 Tax 49 (SC). 3. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the rental receipts as income from “business or profession” and allowing the expenses of Rs.23,500/- as business expenditure.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.40,62,400/-. The assessee…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 24/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…ow the registration was granted to these authorities as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (155 ITR 120) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an ear…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 23/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…ow the registration was granted to these authorities as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (155 ITR 120) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an ear…