DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council

245 ITR 492High Court2000#478 most cited

What is DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council authority for?

The rule of consistency applies when facts or legal positions remain unchanged in earlier assessment years, preventing the Revenue from adopting a divergent stance in subsequent years without new material. This ensures stability and predictability in tax assessments.

193

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council · 245 ITR 492 · rule of consistency · revenue divergent position · identical facts · previous assessment years · consistency principle · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 35ABBSection 10(14)(i)Section 10(5)Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 13(2)(c)section 144(b)advancement of general public utilitysection 12a(a)section 13(2)section 11(4a)related party transactionrule of consistencyfar analysissection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)section 92ca(1)

Judgments citing DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1348/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 92C

…AYs and therefore, applying the rule of consistency, it should not be open for revenue to adopt a divergent position. Reliance in this regard, is placed on the following decisions: • Radha Soami Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC); • CIT vs New Polypack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del) • • DIT (E) vs Apparel Export Promotion Council 244 ITR 734 (Del): CIT vs Girish Mohan Ganeriwala 260 ITR 417 (P&H) B. Trading Segment: 24 It is submitted that the Respondent under the trading segments performs the following functions: i. Import of Lubricants: The Respondent merely imports the lubricants from various group companies and res…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. STEELS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR
Section 133(6)

…osition to ne sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year" This view has been followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neo Ploy Pack (P) Ltd [(2000) 245 ITR 492] and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287]. Further, theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Realest Builders and Services Limited((2008) 307 ITR 202] held, as follows: "In cases where the department wants to tax an assessee on the ground of the liability arising in a particular year, it s…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…cases: - Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC) - CIT vs. Excel Industries (P) Limited: 358 ITR 295 (SC) - Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. vs. CIT: 388 ITR 1 (SC) - DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del) - CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 (Del.) - CIT v. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) - CIT V. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del.) - Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del) - CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries Limited.: ITA 889/2009 (Del.)- Revenue's SLP dismissed (CC 1379/2014) - PCIT v. Quest Investment Advicors Pvt. Ltd.: (2018) 96 taxmann.com 15…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…cases: - Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC) - CIT vs. Excel Industries (P) Limited: 358 ITR 295 (SC) - Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. vs. CIT: 388 ITR 1 (SC) - DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del) - CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 (Del.) - CIT v. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) - CIT V. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del.) - Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del) - CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries Limited.: ITA 889/2009 (Del.)- Revenue's SLP dismissed (CC 1379/2014) - PCIT v. Quest Investment Advicors Pvt. Ltd.: (2018) 96 taxmann.com 15…

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4960/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…cases: - Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC) - CIT vs. Excel Industries (P) Limited: 358 ITR 295 (SC) - Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. vs. CIT: 388 ITR 1 (SC) - DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del) - CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 (Del.) - CIT v. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) - CIT V. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del.) - Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del) - CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries Limited.: ITA 889/2009 (Del.)- Revenue's SLP dismissed (CC 1379/2014) - PCIT v. Quest Investment Advicors Pvt. Ltd.: (2018) 96 taxmann.com 15…

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4868/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…cases: - Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC) - CIT vs. Excel Industries (P) Limited: 358 ITR 295 (SC) - Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. vs. CIT: 388 ITR 1 (SC) - DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del) - CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 (Del.) - CIT v. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) - CIT V. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del.) - Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del) - CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries Limited.: ITA 889/2009 (Del.)- Revenue's SLP dismissed (CC 1379/2014) - PCIT v. Quest Investment Advicors Pvt. Ltd.: (2018) 96 taxmann.com 15…

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…273(P&H) and CIT Vs. DS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.,\n25 DTR (Del) 8, Arihant Builders Developers & Investors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT\n[2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263\nITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi),\nDhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT v. Shiv Sagar\nEstate [2002] 257 ITR 59 (SC) and Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah\n[2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC). In our opinion, there was no good and justifiable\ncause to take a different view and conclude in the assessment proceedings\nfor the year under consideration that t…

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…273(P&H) and CIT Vs. DS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.,\n25 DTR (Del) 8, Arihant Builders Developers & Investors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT\n[2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263\nITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi),\nDhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT v. Shiv Sagar\nEstate [2002] 257 ITR 59 (SC) and Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah\n[2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC). In our opinion, there was no good and justifiable\ncause to take a different view and conclude in the assessment proceedings\nfor the year under consideration that t…

OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

ITA 4777/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…his rule is an exception to the above rule, and has been well\nrecognized in various judicial rulings cited below:\n1. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT/1991/193 ITR 321 (SC)\n2. Sardar Kehar Singh CIT/1991/195 ITR 769 (Raj.)\n3. CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000/245 ITR 492 (Delhi)\n4. CIT vs. Belpahar Refractrorles Ltd., [1981/128/ITR 610(Ori)\n5. M.A. Namazie Endowment vs. CIT / 1988/174 ITR 58 (Mad)\n6. CIT vs. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd./1994/213 ITR 361\n(Bom) (FB)\n7. Turaben Ramanbhal Patel & Anr. Vs. ITO [1995] 215 ITR\n323 (Guj)\n8. Dhansiram Agarwalla vs. CIT/1996/217 ITR 4 (Gau)\nIn the context of the di…

M/S. OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

ITA 4542/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…is rule is an exception to the above rule, and has been well recognized in various judicial rulings cited below:\n\n1. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT/1991/193 ITR 321 (SC)\n2. Sardar Kehar Singh CIT/1991/195 ITR 769 (Raj.)\n3. CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000/245 ITR 492 (Delhi)\n4. CIT vs. Belpahar Refractrorles Ltd., [1981/128/ITR 610(Ori)\n5. M.A. Namazie Endowment vs. CIT / 1988/174 ITR 58 (Mad)\n6. CIT vs. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd./1994/213 ITR 361\n(Bom) (FB)\n7. Turaben Ramanbhal Patel & Anr. Vs. ITO [1995] 215 ITR\n323 (Guj)\n8. Dhansiram Agarwalla vs. CIT/1996/217 ITR 4 (Gau)\n\nIn the context of the…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Excel Industries (P) Limited: 358 ITR 295 (SC)  Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC)  DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del)  CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 (Del.)  CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del.)  Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del) Reliance in this regard is also placed on following decisions where the change in treatment of nature of profits arising from sale of shares, accepted by the Department to be on account of capital gains in the earlier year…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Excel Industries (P) Limited: 358 ITR 295 (SC)  Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC)  DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del)  CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 (Del.)  CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del.)  Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del) Reliance in this regard is also placed on following decisions where the change in treatment of nature of profits arising from sale of shares, accepted by the Department to be on account of capital gains in the earlier year…

ACIT, JHANDEWALAN vs. M/S MANKIND PHARMA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S MAGNET LABS PVT. LTD.), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 5141/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Circle-16(1), Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Delhi. Ltd.), 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Circle-16(1), Labs Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Rahul Prabhakar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…e placed on following decisions relied by the ld. AR; i. CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [358 ITR 295 (SC)]; ii. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT [193 ITR 321 (SC)]; iii. CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356 (SC); iv. CIT Vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd., 245 ITR 492 (Delhi); v. CIT Vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd., 394 ITR 141 (Bombay); 10. Then we are of considered view that given the nature of expenses incurred by the employees, at the time of their travel, to procure business, it is not prudent to expect them to make every claim on the basis of sound invoices or bills. There is no reason to assume employee…

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR OF MAGNET LABS PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1) DELHI, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Circle-16(1), Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Delhi. Ltd.), 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Circle-16(1), Labs Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Rahul Prabhakar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…e placed on following decisions relied by the ld. AR; i. CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [358 ITR 295 (SC)]; ii. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT [193 ITR 321 (SC)]; iii. CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 356 (SC); iv. CIT Vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd., 245 ITR 492 (Delhi); v. CIT Vs. Alstom Projects India Ltd., 394 ITR 141 (Bombay); 10. Then we are of considered view that given the nature of expenses incurred by the employees, at the time of their travel, to procure business, it is not prudent to expect them to make every claim on the basis of sound invoices or bills. There is no reason to assume employee…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 9(1), NEW DELHI vs. FIS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are partly allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 372/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…this score was uncalled for. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang [1992] 193 ITR 321. Further, the reliance was placed on the following decisions: Neo Poly Pack Private Limited: [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Del HC), Apparel Export Promotion Council: [2000] 244 ITR 734 (Del HC) and Girish Mohan Ganeriwala: [2003] 260 ITR 417 (P&H HC). The Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) as under: 27 CO No.64/Del/2018 "We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking, r…

M/S KOHINOOR FOODS LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1549/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

…Y 2006-07, the net profit or gain of Rs.3.72 crores; for FY 2007-08, the net profit of Rs.1.34 crores had been taxed as business profit. On this ground, the ITAT, applying the rule of consistency [accepted by this Court in CIT v. New Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del)] accepted the assessee's contentions. The ITAT also held, while allowing the appeal, as follows: - "54. We have heard both the sides on this issue. We have also gone through the records available in the paper book. We have also taken into consideration the written submissions from both the sides on this issue. The assessee is engaged in the…

M/S KOHINOOR FOODS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1900/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

…Y 2006-07, the net profit or gain of Rs.3.72 crores; for FY 2007-08, the net profit of Rs.1.34 crores had been taxed as business profit. On this ground, the ITAT, applying the rule of consistency [accepted by this Court in CIT v. New Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del)] accepted the assessee's contentions. The ITAT also held, while allowing the appeal, as follows: - "54. We have heard both the sides on this issue. We have also gone through the records available in the paper book. We have also taken into consideration the written submissions from both the sides on this issue. The assessee is engaged in the…

FLUOR DANIEL INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6581/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271Section 92C

…and therefore, applying the rule of consistency, it should not be open for revenue to adopt a divergent position. Reliance in this regard, is placed on the following decisions: i) Radha Soami Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) ii) CIT vs Neo Polypack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del) iii) DIT(E) vs Apparel Export Promotion Council 244 ITR 734 (Del) Page 7 of 23 ITA No. 6581/DEL/2018 [A.Y 2014-15] ITA No. 525/DEL/2021 [A.Y 2016-17] Fluor Daniel India Pvt Ltd Vs. The Addl. CIT iv) CIT vs Girish Mohan Ganeriwala 260 ITR 417 (P&H) 14. The ld counsel for the assessee further submitted that the appropriate adjustments need…

PALAVESAKANNU PALANI,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-1, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 1578/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1575, 1576, 1577 & 1578/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2013-14,2015-16 & 2015-2016) Palavesakannu Palani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 28, Ram Nagar, Ward 1, Thiyagaraja Nagar, Tirunelveli. Palamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002. [Pan: Awvpp 9442L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d be maintained for the finality of the controversy, otherwise it will lead to nowhere. In the following cases rule of consistency has been recognized and followed:- 01. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 02. CIT vs. Neo Poly Pck (P) Ltd (2000)245 ITR 492 (Delhi) We, therefore following rule of consistency, direct the ld. Assessing Officer to take profit of Rs.0.50 per kg for assessment year 2011-12 and Rs.0.75 per kg for assessment year 2014-2015 as both assessment years are prior to assessment year 2015-2016. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer will re-compute the income keeping in mind the con…

PALAVESAKANNU PALANI,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-1, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 1577/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1575, 1576, 1577 & 1578/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2013-14,2015-16 & 2015-2016) Palavesakannu Palani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 28, Ram Nagar, Ward 1, Thiyagaraja Nagar, Tirunelveli. Palamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002. [Pan: Awvpp 9442L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d be maintained for the finality of the controversy, otherwise it will lead to nowhere. In the following cases rule of consistency has been recognized and followed:- 01. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 02. CIT vs. Neo Poly Pck (P) Ltd (2000)245 ITR 492 (Delhi) We, therefore following rule of consistency, direct the ld. Assessing Officer to take profit of Rs.0.50 per kg for assessment year 2011-12 and Rs.0.75 per kg for assessment year 2014-2015 as both assessment years are prior to assessment year 2015-2016. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer will re-compute the income keeping in mind the con…

Showing 1–20 of 193 · Page 1 of 10

...