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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…different assessment years, Ld. AR cited the decisions reported in 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). Since the issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee own case for the assessment year 2007-08, ITA No.-6021/Del/2012…

M/S Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 1/9-B, Jindal House, Circle-5(2), बनाम/ Asaf Ali Road, C.R. Building, Vs. Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 ("नधा%&रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacc2744C

Section 14A

…on record. On the issue of consistency, we are supported by following decisions:- 5 ITA No. 4439/Del./2015 Cargo Motors Pvt Ltd. 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…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1835/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 145C(5)Section 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-2, New Delhi M/s. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. PAN : AAACA0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by Sh. H.S. Choudhary, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 03.08.2017 Date of pronouncement 23.10.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 20/03/2015 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rang…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi Press Samachar Patra Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1433/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…consistency the same view should continue to prevail for subsequent years unless there is material change in the facts. For the said proposition, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements” 1. 193 ITR 321 (SC) ( Radhasoami Satsang v/s CIT) 2. 245 ITR 492(Del) (CIT v/s Neo Poly Pack(P) Ltd) 3. 264ITR 276(Del) (CIT v/s ARJ Security Printers) 4. 279ITR 86(Del) (CIT v/s Rajeev Grinding Mills) 7 | P a g e ITO, Ward 10 (1) , New Delhi Vs Delhi Pres samachar Patra Private Limited ITA NO 1433 , 1061/ Del/2013 & 5001 & 6515/ Del/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 2. The Second ground of appeal is against the…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5570/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 263

…rmissible. 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 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. Dalai 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.…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5569/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 263

…rmissible. 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 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. Dalai 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.…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gtl Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

…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 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…

Harbans Lal Sethi, Jaipur vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT-. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…the other and parties have allowed that position 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 in CIT v/s Neo Ploy Pack (P) Ltd (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del), CIT v/s Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom) and M/s Hero MotoCorp Ltd. v/s Addl. CIT in ITA No.1980/Del/12 for A.Y.2007-08 vide order dated 11.06.2013. 7.6 Therefore, in the present case the only course left with the ld. CIT(A) was to appreciate the past history settled by superior authority i.e. ITAT which he could and should not have…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…wed that position to be sustained by no challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year.” The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh (supra), we are of the view that the AO has allowed the claim while completing the assessment under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 & 2008-09. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of jurisdictional High…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…wed that position to be sustained by no challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year.” The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh (supra), we are of the view that the AO has allowed the claim while completing the assessment under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 & 2008-09. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of jurisdictional High…

Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…wed that position to be sustained by no challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year.” The same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh (supra), we are of the view that the AO has allowed the claim while completing the assessment under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 & 2008-09. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of jurisdictional High…

Sanjay Kumar Poddar, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 15(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee, in part

ITA 3150/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3150/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Jain & Associates, Circle 15(1),Matru Mandir, Vs. 12 Engineer Building, 265, Princess Mumbai-400 006. Street, Mumbai – 400 002. Pan:Aabpp 2018 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3961/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), Sanjay Kumar J. Poddar, C/O Shankarlal Vs. Jain & Associates, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Nayak- Dr Assessee By: Shri S.L. Jain

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak- DR
Section 10Section 111ASection 143Section 2Section 254(1)

…kers of legislation at the time of introduction of Bill or construction thereupon is put by the executive upon its coming into force, the carries great weight.’’ 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ARJ Security Printers, 264 ITR 276 and Neo Pollypack Pvt Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, where a issue has been decided consistently in earlier AY.s in particular manner, the same view should prevail in subsequent years unless there is a material change in facts, meaning thereby, there must be material change in the facts. 13. The Mumbai…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…to the assessee, that too on same facts and circumstances. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.); and the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the assessee is having a strong case in its favour. 8.16. Leave apart, we are of…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…to the assessee, that too on same facts and circumstances. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.); and the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the assessee is having a strong case in its favour. 8.16. Leave apart, we are of…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…to the assessee, that too on same facts and circumstances. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.); and the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the assessee is having a strong case in its favour. 8.16. Leave apart, we are of…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 SH. VIKAS KAPOOR, VS ACIT, FLAT NO. 1, POCKET-A1, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, SECTOR-07, NEW DELHI ROHINI, DELHI -110 085 C/O SABHARWAL & PARTNERS, 4819/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (PAN: AHRPK4150F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. & SH. SUDHIR MATHUR, ADV. Department by : MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.9.2016 of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi pertaining to assess…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Officer is bound by rule of consistency. The ratio laid down in following cases supports the case of the assessee:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. CIT vs A.R.J. 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…

Patanjali Yogpeeth (Nyas), Delhi vs. ADIT(Exemption), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

…es 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) In the impugned order, the CIT(A) did not apply the decision o…

M/S. Caprihan Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4935/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi & Sh. SatyajeetFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4935/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2013-14 M/S CAPRIHAN AUTO PRIVATE ITO, WARD-5(3), NEW DELHI LIMITED, VS. M-113, GREATER KAILASH-2, NEW DELHI – 110 048 (PAN: AADCC0092J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. R.S. Singhvi & Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAs Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:- 1. That the AO was not justified in…

` Niharika Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 6183/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2010-11 Niharika Education Society, Addl. Cit, Range-1, C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Ghaziabad. Chamber No.206-07, Vs. Ansal “Satyam”, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaatn 6147 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

…Society [2016] 385 ITR 66: 70 taxmann.com 171 (SC) 10. THIAGARAJAR CHARITIES V. ADDL CIT 225 ITR 1010(SC) 11. ADDL CIT V. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MFG. ASS. 121 ITR I(SC) 12. RADHASOAMI SATSANG V CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 13. CIT V NEO POLY PACK (P) LTD. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (DEL) 14. UNION OF INDIA V SATISH PANALAL SHAH (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC). 12. Ld. DR submitted that principles of res-judicata are not applicable to income tax proceedings and, therefore, the assessment order in the case of K. S. Memorial For Education and Research (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted th…