DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council

245 ITR 492High Court2000#486 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 366,444 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

M/S. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust, Jalandhar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

ITA 185/ASR/2001[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…s judicata does not strictly apply to the income-tax proceedings but in order to maintain consistency, the Revenue cannot be permitted to rake up settled issues. - DIT (E) vs. 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: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) - DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) - CIT vs. P. KhrishnaWarrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) - CIT vs. Harishchandra Gupta 132 ITR 799 (Ori) - CIT vs. SewaBharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present…

M/S. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust, Jalandhar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

ITA 184/ASR/2001[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…s judicata does not strictly apply to the income-tax proceedings but in order to maintain consistency, the Revenue cannot be permitted to rake up settled issues. - DIT (E) vs. 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: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) - DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) - CIT vs. P. KhrishnaWarrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) - CIT vs. Harishchandra Gupta 132 ITR 799 (Ori) - CIT vs. SewaBharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 45/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…oters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (7) CIT V. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276 (Del) (8) DIT v. Apparel Export Promotion Council 244 ITR 734 (Del) (9) CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del) (10) CIT v. Gilds'- Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) (11) Thirani Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT 153 Taxman 45 (Del) 12. Vesta Investmemnt and Trading Co.(P) Limited –vs.- CIT: 70 ITD 200(Chd.) 35 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited 31. Further we observe that the a…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 418/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…oters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (7) CIT V. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276 (Del) (8) DIT v. Apparel Export Promotion Council 244 ITR 734 (Del) (9) CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del) (10) CIT v. Gilds'- Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) (11) Thirani Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT 153 Taxman 45 (Del) 12. Vesta Investmemnt and Trading Co.(P) Limited –vs.- CIT: 70 ITD 200(Chd.) 35 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited 31. Further we observe that the a…

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4295/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…na of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescribes the manner how the CUP method is applied. Now sub clause (ii) of Rule 10B clearly provides that under CUP method also the pri…

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4294/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…na of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescribes the manner how the CUP method is applied. Now sub clause (ii) of Rule 10B clearly provides that under CUP method also the pri…

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4293/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…na of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescribes the manner how the CUP method is applied. Now sub clause (ii) of Rule 10B clearly provides that under CUP method also the pri…

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2863/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…na of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescribes the manner how the CUP method is applied. Now sub clause (ii) of Rule 10B clearly provides that under CUP method also the pri…

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2862/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…na of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescribes the manner how the CUP method is applied. Now sub clause (ii) of Rule 10B clearly provides that under CUP method also the pri…

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2860/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…na of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescribes the manner how the CUP method is applied. Now sub clause (ii) of Rule 10B clearly provides that under CUP method also the pri…

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2859/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…na of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescribes the manner how the CUP method is applied. Now sub clause (ii) of Rule 10B clearly provides that under CUP method also the pri…

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 10/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…na of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescribes the manner how the CUP method is applied. Now sub clause (ii) of Rule 10B clearly provides that under CUP method also the pri…

Cricket Club of India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…on, which was examined year after year, had remained the same, the ld. CIT was not entitled to pass a revision order u/s 263 of the Act and take a different view. d) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd reported in 245 ITR 492 (Del) e) Decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Quest Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd reported in 96 taxmann.com 157 (Bom) Revenue from holding Cricket Matches 6. With respect to revenue earned from holding cricket matches for which adverse observations were made by the ld. PCIT in his section 263 order is concerned, w…

Pressman Realty Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 316/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 10(13)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e on facts as elaborated above, year on year basis. AY: 2016-17 Pressman Realty Pvt. Ltd. 12 13. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Neo Poly Pack(P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492(Del), wherein it was held as under:- “It is true that each assessment year being independent of each other, the doctrine of res judicata does not strictly apply to the income-tax proceedings, but where an issue has been considered and decided consistently in a number of earlier assessment years in a particular manner, for the sake of consistency,…

Ascendas It Park (Pune) Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 966/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.966/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ascendas It Park (Pune) Vs. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Private Limited, Pune. Unit No.607 & 608, 6Th Floor, Amar Business Park, Survey No.105 (3), Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aafca4840E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Chandni Shah Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 31.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “Ground 1: Treating General Management Fees Paid By The Appellant To Be Capital In Nature On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action

For Appellant: Smt. Chandni ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

…uld be allowed as revenue expenditure placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RadhasoamiSatsang vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321 (SC) and the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of (i) CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd., 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) and (ii) CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd., 281 ITR 346 (Delhi). However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the appellant company is still in the process of developing the IT/ITES Parks and, therefore, the revenue expenditure incurred till the completion of the project should be capital…

ACIT-8 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5754/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-8(1)(1) M/S Royal Western Turf Club Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Limited, Mahalaxmi Race Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Course, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…permissible. The learned Assessing Officer is bound by rule of consistency. The following cases support the case of the assessee:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) iv. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) v. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275ITR124) (AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vi. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) vii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. C…

Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

ITA 534/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…taken by the Department in the preceding years should not be disturbed as held in following case:- i. Arihant Builders v/s. ITAT (2005) 277 ITR 239 (MP) ii. ACIT v/s. Gendala Hazarilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted pa…

Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

ITA 533/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…taken by the Department in the preceding years should not be disturbed as held in following case:- i. Arihant Builders v/s. ITAT (2005) 277 ITR 239 (MP) ii. ACIT v/s. Gendala Hazarilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted pa…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 375/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…taken by the Department in the preceding years should not be disturbed as held in following case:- i. Arihant Builders v/s. ITAT (2005) 277 ITR 239 (MP) ii. ACIT v/s. Gendala Hazarilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted pa…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 374/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…taken by the Department in the preceding years should not be disturbed as held in following case:- i. Arihant Builders v/s. ITAT (2005) 277 ITR 239 (MP) ii. ACIT v/s. Gendala Hazarilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted pa…