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 367,154 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

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.725/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sarath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)

…bunal in the assessee’s own case. He IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2017 Global e-Business Operations Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 18 further submitted that to perpetuate an error is no heroism as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Baroda Ltd (155 ITR 120). He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Rameshlal Sanwarmal (122 ITR 162) has held that the error committed in earlier decision could be corrected in a later decision. 15. The Ld A.R, in reply, submitted that, in various decisions rendered by High Courts, it has been held that the brand value plays a significant rol…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…law (refer para 8.3). The said order/s, in light of the foregoing, is not liable to be followed (Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 23 (SC); Raghubir Singh (Decd) v. Union of India [1989] 178 ITR 548 (SC); Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. UoI [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC); CIT v. Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 477. [ [[Discussion 8.5 We have already clarified of the detailed arguments and deliberations by the Tribunal in Vinod V. Chhapia (supra), also noting its’ findings (para 8.3). That being the case, the only course available to us is to decide the issue, regarding the said decision as the only judicial…

Ravi Mohan Gehi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Cen Cir 40, Ravi Mohan Gehi, Piramal Chambers B/6, Navkar Chambers, बिधम/ Mumbai Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Pin- Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aeppg1674M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Pradip Kanasi, Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Michael, Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 : Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2020 :

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kanasi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Michael, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 57

…where he takes all the decisions. The Ld. AO) relied upon following case laws which were not applicable to your appellant. 13 I.T.A. No. 6238/Mum/2016 Ravi Mohan Gehi a) MIs Gherzi Eastern Limited (ITA no 6562/BOM/94) b) Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd (SC) (155 ITR 120) c) Magganlal Chagganlal Pvt. Ltd (Born.) (236 ITR 456) d) M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd (Mum- Trib.) (12 SOT 248) e) Daga Capital Management Ltd (Mum- Trib.) (117 IT!) 169) It is to be noted that all the cases referred by the A.O. were in relation to Limited companies where in all the decisions are taken unanimously by the Board of Directors…

Anil Kumar (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9683/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 9683/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sh. Anil Kumar (Huf), Vs Income Tax Officer, 4032, Chawri Bazar, Ward-46(2), Delhi-110006 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaha7048A Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 57

…aw strength 9 Anil Kumar (HUF) from the principle enunciated by the Apex Court, that there is no valour in perpetuating an error. Here, I would like to draw strength from the order of the Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. UOI (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) wherein it was held that to perpetuate an error is no heroism, to rectify it is the compulsion of the judicial conscience. 4. Thus, we find two issues arise out of the order of the ld. CIT(A). (A) Whether the assessee is eligible to claim the expenditure incurred in earning of the interest income as per the provisions of Section 57 of the…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 174/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Podar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35ESection 37Section 37(1)

…hods. No inference may therefore, arise from the employment by the method of valuing stock at cost (or market value whichever is lower). 3.21. Reference is also drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (8aroda) P. Ltd. vs. UOI [ 155 ITR 120, 140. (SC)] wherein the Supreme Court observed that where a decision rendered previously is found to be erroneous, such decision can be overruled subsequently. The doctrine of stare decisis should not deter the Court from overruling an earlier decision, if it is satisfied that such decision is manifestly wrong or proceeds upon a mistaken assumpti…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. CIT 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, PAN: AAACT4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The…

M/S Ad2Pro Media Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the 14 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 490/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri P.K.Gadale(Ita Nos.490 To 503(Bang)/2019) (Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ad2Pro Media Solutions Pvt.Ltd., No.10, 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, J.P.Nagar-Iii Phase, Bangalore-560078 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095 Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

…ry & based on survey material. 3) The AOs in International Taxation have domain knowledge. 4) If the Corporate AO made an error, there is no reason to perpetuate it. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Distributors Baroda" (155 ITR 120), wherein it was held that "to perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it, is the compulsion of judicial conscience." Yours faithfully, (VANDANA SAGAR) On Duty as Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT-1) Bengalur ITA Nos.490-503(Bang)/2019 9 SYNOPSIS & WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS by Learned AR of the assessee 1. PREAMBLE 1.1 The Appellant, being aggr…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 1243/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2020AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 12ASection 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…t of the receipts is justified. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC), which was overruled by the Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120. Following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Loonkar Tools (P.) Ltd. [1995] 213 ITR 721, DBITR Application No. 1 of 1987, decided at Jodhpur on 21-7-1994, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the entire interest and not the net receip…

M/S. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 1178/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2020AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 12ASection 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…t of the receipts is justified. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243 (SC), which was overruled by the Apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120. Following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Loonkar Tools (P.) Ltd. [1995] 213 ITR 721, DBITR Application No. 1 of 1987, decided at Jodhpur on 21-7-1994, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the entire interest and not the net receip…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4950/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…y stages and with somewhat greater satisfaction to a refusal to ascribe infallibility to others." On the second limb of this proposition, we are reminded of the words of Justice Bhagwati, in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), to the effect that "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter :'a Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible, and, therefore, ever ready to learn; great and honest…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4949/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 92ASection 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92DSection 92E

…y stages and with somewhat greater satisfaction to a refusal to ascribe infallibility to others." On the second limb of this proposition, we are reminded of the words of Justice Bhagwati, in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), to the effect that "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter :'a Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible, and, therefore, ever ready to learn; great and honest…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2165/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…ITA No. 2165/Mum/15 Assessment year: 2007-08 Page 1 of 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President) and Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member)] ITA No 2165/Mum/15 Assessment year: 2007-08 Kaybee Pvt Ltd ……………….............Appellant 301, A Wing, Solaris I, Saki Vihar Road Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 072 [PAN: AAACK1715H] Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1)(3), Mumbai ………….……......Respondent Appearances by P J Pardiwalla along-with Madhur Agarwal for the appellant Ujjawal Kumar for the respondent Dates of hearing of the appeal : February 18 and 21, 2020 Date of prono…

Kaybee P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (Erstwhile Juridictional ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2164/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92A(1)(b)Section 92A(2)

…y stages and with somewhat greater satisfaction to a refusal to ascribe infallibility to others." On the second limb of this proposition, we are reminded of the words of Justice Bhagwati, in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), to the effect ITA No. 2164/Mum/15 Assessment year: 2006-07 Page 9 of 15 that "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter :'a Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fal…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Legacy Food Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6197/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…to manufacturing activity in earlier year by the Tribunal but the assessee is required to fulfill the requirement of law in relevant assessment year. We may note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distribution (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 155 ITR 120 has held that to perpetuate an error is no heroism and to rectify it is compulsion of judicial conscience. The issue in dispute is accordingly restored to the file of the Learned Assessing Officer, who after verification of the compliance of Section 80-IC(7), shall decide the issue in dispute of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act in accorda…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Legacy Food Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6196/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…to manufacturing activity in earlier year by the Tribunal but the assessee is required to fulfill the requirement of law in relevant assessment year. We may note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distribution (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 155 ITR 120 has held that to perpetuate an error is no heroism and to rectify it is compulsion of judicial conscience. The issue in dispute is accordingly restored to the file of the Learned Assessing Officer, who after verification of the compliance of Section 80-IC(7), shall decide the issue in dispute of deduction under section 80-IC of the Act in accorda…

M/S. Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., C.C. - 4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee ( in ITA No

ITA 1072/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1071 & 1072/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 &2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…ofits of the business under Expln. (baa) to s. 80HHC of the Act. 5. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349 : (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) in which a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that only the dividends computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which is included in the gross total income of the domestic company, shall be taken into account for working out the relief under s. 80M of the Act. He cited the judgment in CIT vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (s…

M/S. Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., C.C. - 4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee ( in ITA No

ITA 1071/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1071 & 1072/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 &2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…ofits of the business under Expln. (baa) to s. 80HHC of the Act. 5. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349 : (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) in which a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that only the dividends computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which is included in the gross total income of the domestic company, shall be taken into account for working out the relief under s. 80M of the Act. He cited the judgment in CIT vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (s…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…specific provision of section 35DD of the Act introduced. 4.7 As far plea of rule of consistency is concerned, we may like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. reported in 155 ITR 120, where it is observed if any wrong has been committed, same should not be perpetuated. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under: ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 “28. But, even if, in our view, the decision in Cloth Traders' case (supra) is erroneous, the question still remains whether we should overturn it. Or…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…specific provision of section 35DD of the Act introduced. 4.7 As far plea of rule of consistency is concerned, we may like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. reported in 155 ITR 120, where it is observed if any wrong has been committed, same should not be perpetuated. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under: ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 “28. But, even if, in our view, the decision in Cloth Traders' case (supra) is erroneous, the question still remains whether we should overturn it. Or…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…specific provision of section 35DD of the Act introduced. 4.7 As far plea of rule of consistency is concerned, we may like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. reported in 155 ITR 120, where it is observed if any wrong has been committed, same should not be perpetuated. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are reproduced as under: ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 “28. But, even if, in our view, the decision in Cloth Traders' case (supra) is erroneous, the question still remains whether we should overturn it. Or…