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

Garg Tubes Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y.: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Mukharjee, Sr. Dr
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…. For the sake of consistency, the same view should be continued to prevail in subsequent year i.e. for F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11. Hence, we place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. [245 ITR 492]. In our view, though the A.O. had made up his mind not to allow the expenses incurred /claimed by the assessee on account of commission charged by M/s Sumiti Alloys (P) Ltd., yet he had picked up the gross figure of Rs.90,72,893/- while overlooking the fact that service tax amounting to Rs. 8,47,242/- was included in the total figure of Rs. 90,7…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…essment years. The Ld. AR relied upon 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. 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) The Ld. AR further submitted that against the total accrued liability claimed during the year amounting to Rs.36.38 crores, the entire amount has either been paid or w…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Samir Narian Bhojwani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 331/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit-Cc-3(4) Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-3 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.134/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 331/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit-Cc-24 & 26 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Family Hospital, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabpb9150H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6807/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.41/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 6153/Mum/2014) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…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) ITA. No.331/M/2015 & 6807M/2014 CO. No. 134 & 41/M/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 &2010-11 (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 argumen…

V.S.P. Stores Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 222/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivsp Stores Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 10, Community Centre, Ward-26(1), Saket, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacv0064A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Baveen RastogiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…t induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi- judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity." 9. Following the above decisions, this Court has in A.R.J. Security Printers' case (supra) and CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del), held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail even during the subsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts. The law is, therefore, fairly well settled…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…ency. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.: 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: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) - DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) - CIT v. P. KhrishnaWarrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) - CIT v Harishchandra Gupta 132 ITR 799 (Ori) - CIT v. SewaBharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H) o CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries Limited.: ITA 889/2009 (Del) – SLP di…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Uthan Educational Society, Faridabad

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 2657/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaacit Uthan Educational Circle-Ii Society, Faridabad 5E/1A B.P. N.I.T Vs. Faridabad Pan : Aaatu1248C Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…versies as it must in other spheres of human activity.” 5.5 Following the above decisions, The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has in A.R.J. Security Printers' case reported in 264 ITR 276 (Del) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Neo Poly Pack P. Ltd. reported in 245 ITR 492 (Del), held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail even during the subsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts. The law is therefore fairly well settle…

Satypal Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3965/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…ntrary facts/material, consistency has to be maintained, for which the ratio laid down in the following cases supports our view. i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 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.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Satypal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3831/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…ntrary facts/material, consistency has to be maintained, for which the ratio laid down in the following cases supports our view. i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 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.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a 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…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…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…

Essar Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1363/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. M/S Essar Properties Pvt. 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., 11, K K Marg, Essar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400024. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essar Properties Pvt., Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. Essar House, 11Keshavrao 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Khadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…by the defendant has not been traversed in that case also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken.” Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 245 ITR 492 found that if rental income from the factory building assessed as business income for earlier assessment years consistently and there is no material change in facts then AO is not supposed to assess such income all of a sudden as income from house property in one of the year in isolation. The other decisions cited by the assessee supra are also o…

DCIT 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1101/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. M/S Essar Properties Pvt. 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., 11, K K Marg, Essar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400024. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essar Properties Pvt., Dcit. Cir.6(3)(2), R. No. Essar House, 11Keshavrao 522, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Khadya Marg, Mahalaxmi, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace0893Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…by the defendant has not been traversed in that case also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken.” Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 245 ITR 492 found that if rental income from the factory building assessed as business income for earlier assessment years consistently and there is no material change in facts then AO is not supposed to assess such income all of a sudden as income from house property in one of the year in isolation. The other decisions cited by the assessee supra are also o…

Essa I Merchant, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 17(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1592/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…[1992] 193 ITR 321, though the principles of res judicata do not apply to income-tax proceedings, particularly when each position to be changed in a subsequent year." 7.3 Also, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 1 has held as under : "It is true that each assessment year being independent of the other, the doctrine of res judicata does not strictly apply to 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 view shoul…

Ess Ismail Merchant, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3618/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…[1992] 193 ITR 321, though the principles of res judicata do not apply to income-tax proceedings, particularly when each position to be changed in a subsequent year." 7.3 Also, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 1 has held as under : "It is true that each assessment year being independent of the other, the doctrine of res judicata does not strictly apply to 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 view shoul…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd, Rajam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 458/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…entative also contended that the principle of consistency should be followed by the AO and relied on the following decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thu…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited, Rajam vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…entative also contended that the principle of consistency should be followed by the AO and relied on the following decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thu…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rajam vs. The ITO, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 349/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…entative also contended that the principle of consistency should be followed by the AO and relied on the following decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thu…

The DCIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Mills Pvt Ltd, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 340/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…entative also contended that the principle of consistency should be followed by the AO and relied on the following decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd.) 8.2 Thu…

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…followed, he relied upon catena of judgments which are as under:- • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT: 193 HR 321 (SC) • CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.: 358 ITR 295 (SC) • DIT(E) vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council:244 ITR 734 (Del) • CIT vs. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd.: 245 ITR 492 (Del.) • CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd.: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) • DIT vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) • CIT vs. P. Khrishna Warrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) • CIT vs. Harishchandra Gupta: 132 ITR 799 (Ori) 26. Coming to the issue of invoking of section 50D from first appellate stage by the Ld. CIT (A), Mr. Vohra subm…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5629/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)

…ars, where the loans/advances have increased, the position is accepted by the Income Tax Department. Even on the principle of consistency, the order of the CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. Reliance is placed on the decision CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492. 9. The DR has filed a copy of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Proteins v. Dy. CIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC) in which the Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been dismissed. In this context, it is submitted as under: The above noted decision is not relevant at all because in the said case, the addition was made on…