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 366,470 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

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…re not applicable to income tax proceedings, it does not mean that it is open for the assessing officer to come to a different conclusion on similar facts and circumstances. He relied up on Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT: 193 ITR 321 CIT vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492, CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd.: 358 ITR 295 (SC) , DIT (E) V. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del), CIT V. Dalmial Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.), DIT(E) v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) CIT V. Girish. Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) CIT vs. Sewa Bharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H)…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…re not applicable to income tax proceedings, it does not mean that it is open for the assessing officer to come to a different conclusion on similar facts and circumstances. He relied up on Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT: 193 ITR 321 CIT vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492, CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd.: 358 ITR 295 (SC) , DIT (E) V. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del), CIT V. Dalmial Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.), DIT(E) v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) CIT V. Girish. Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) CIT vs. Sewa Bharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H)…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…re not applicable to income tax proceedings, it does not mean that it is open for the assessing officer to come to a different conclusion on similar facts and circumstances. He relied up on Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT: 193 ITR 321 CIT vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492, CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd.: 358 ITR 295 (SC) , DIT (E) V. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del), CIT V. Dalmial Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.), DIT(E) v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) CIT V. Girish. Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) CIT vs. Sewa Bharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H)…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…re not applicable to income tax proceedings, it does not mean that it is open for the assessing officer to come to a different conclusion on similar facts and circumstances. He relied up on Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT: 193 ITR 321 CIT vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492, CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd.: 358 ITR 295 (SC) , DIT (E) V. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del), CIT V. Dalmial Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.), DIT(E) v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) CIT V. Girish. Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) CIT vs. Sewa Bharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H)…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…re not applicable to income tax proceedings, it does not mean that it is open for the assessing officer to come to a different conclusion on similar facts and circumstances. He relied up on Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT: 193 ITR 321 CIT vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492, CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd.: 358 ITR 295 (SC) , DIT (E) V. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del), CIT V. Dalmial Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.), DIT(E) v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) CIT V. Girish. Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) CIT vs. Sewa Bharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H)…

DCIT CC 3(4) Ce RG 3, Mumbai vs. Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar/ ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vora Prasad Gude
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC), For the proposition that rental income should continue to be assessed under the head "Income from Business" unless there is, a material change in facts the appellant, relies upon - (i) CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack P. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) ; (ii) Royal Business Centre P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3901/MUM/2004){BCAJ April, 2006) (iii) Goel Builders 381 ITR 344 (Allahabad) (iv) DCIT Vs. Goel Erectors and Pipe Manufacturers P. Ltd, 45 DTR 473 (Lucknow} (Trib). " 7.5 The appellant summed up his argument stating that the activity under consideration is carried on by him regularly,…

Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1736/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleericsson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit 4Th Floor, Dhakha House, Circle-8(2) 18/17, W.E.A Pusa Lance, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi Aaace0138N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…epeatedly held that it is incorrect to arrive at different conclusion on similar set of facts and circumstances. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) • CIT vs. Neo Polypack Private Limited (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del) • NGC Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2011) 10 Taxman 140 (Mum.) The Ld. AR further submitted that it is well settled and consistently upheld by the Courts that the Department cannot sit in the armchair of the businessman 13 and question the business rationale or commercial wisdom of the businessman. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitte…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Jignesh Virambhai Rabari, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 363/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2019AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…5 of 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 992, and followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. R.K.K.R. International (P.) Ltd. [2005] 198 CTR 567 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492. 9. When it cannot be open to revenue authorities to challenge the relief granted by the CIT(A) in one case, when on identical issue the order has not been challenged in the other case, it is only elementary that when the relief granted by the CIT(A) is accepted in one case in one year, it cannot be open to the revenue authorities to challenge id…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…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.” 7.18 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. 7.19 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Realest Builders and Services Limited (2008) 307 ITR 202 held as : “In case where the department wants to tax an assessee on the ground of the liability arising in a particular year, it should…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Core Health Care Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals, as also the cross objections, are dismissed

ITA 1800/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 992, and followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. R.K.K.R. International (P.) Ltd. [2005] 198 CTR 567 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492. When such are the views of Hon’ble Courts above, it is beyond any doubt or controversy that the revenue authorities cannot even challenge the relief granted by an appellate authority in one assessment year, when, on the same issue, it has accepted the relief granted by the appellate authority in another assessment year. Be that as it may, the is…

Core Health Care Ltd., (Liquidated Company), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., .Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals, as also the cross objections, are dismissed

ITA 1409/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 992, and followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. R.K.K.R. International (P.) Ltd. [2005] 198 CTR 567 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492. When such are the views of Hon’ble Courts above, it is beyond any doubt or controversy that the revenue authorities cannot even challenge the relief granted by an appellate authority in one assessment year, when, on the same issue, it has accepted the relief granted by the appellate authority in another assessment year. Be that as it may, the is…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 7691/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application no. 475-476/Del/2018 (Arising out of ITA no. 1811 & 7691/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, New Delhi E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 Assessment Year : 20…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application no. 475-476/Del/2018 (Arising out of ITA no. 1811 & 7691/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, New Delhi E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 Assessment Year : 20…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1662/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application no. 475-476/Del/2018 (Arising out of ITA no. 1811 & 7691/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, New Delhi E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 Assessment Year : 20…

M/S. Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…r decision supra reiterated the law in this regard. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions wherein the aforesaid position has consistently been upheld by the High Courts, including this Hon’ble Court.: • CIT vs Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 9Del) • DIT (E) V. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del) • CIT V. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) • CIT V. Dalmial Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del) • CIT vs. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276(Del) • M/S Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital : 300 ITR 75 (Del) • Giesecke & Devrient India Private Limited. Vs…

Manugraph India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 338/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Manugraph India Limited Asst. Cit-3(2)(1) Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Sidhwa House, N. A. Sawant Marg, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 7246 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi : Shri V. Jenardhan Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 : 04.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Shri Pranay Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…no disallowance is warranted in the instant year: • Radha Saomi Satsang v CIT (193 ITR 321). • CIT v Berger Paints (266 ITR 99 (SC)) • DhansiRam Aggarwalla v CIT (217 ITR 4 (Gau)) • CIT V Shree Ram Memorial Foundation (158 ITR 3 (Del)) • CIT v Neo poly Pack (245 ITR 492 (Del)) • UDI v Kuomidini Narayan Dalal and Another (249 ITR 219 (SC)) • UOl v Satish Panna Lal Shah (249 ITR 221 (SC)) • CIT v J.K. Charitable Trust (308 ITR 161 (SC)) • Racold Thermo Limited (ITA No.1454/PN/2010) dated 11 September 2015 • Affinity Express India Pvt Ltd (ITA No.595/PN/2013) dated 29 April 2015 2.21 In light of the above decision…

M/S Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh BeganiFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra
Section 143(3)

…ning in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter and if there was not change it was in support of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack ( P.) Ltd. reported as 245 ITR 492 ( Del.) has held that it is true that each assessment year being independent of each other, the doctrine of res- adjudicata 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, the same…

M/S Arun Agriculture, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 29/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Rpr/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.B. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Goel

…the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter and if there was not change it was in support of the assessee. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack ( P.) Ltd. reported as 245 ITR 492 ( Del.) has held that it is true that each assessment year being independent of each other, the doctrine of res- adjudicata 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, the same vie…

Rajnandini Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 383/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT)
Section 23Section 24

…321 wherein it was held that if there are no change in the facts, a different conclusion was not warranted by the Income tax officials. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 wherein it was observed that the Rajnandini Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT doctrine of res judicata does not apply to the income tax proceedings since each assessment year is independent of the other, but where issue has been decided consistency in a broad manner for earlier assessment years, for the sake of consistency, the same view should co…

Rajnandini Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 382/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT)
Section 23Section 24

…321 wherein it was held that if there are no change in the facts, a different conclusion was not warranted by the Income tax officials. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 wherein it was observed that the Rajnandini Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT doctrine of res judicata does not apply to the income tax proceedings since each assessment year is independent of the other, but where issue has been decided consistency in a broad manner for earlier assessment years, for the sake of consistency, the same view should co…