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

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3542/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…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.‟‟ 13. 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 assessment years 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. Sh…

Mohan Kapoorchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

ITA 3541/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Tiwari and Ms. Rutuza N. PawarFor Respondent: Neil Philip

…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.‟‟ 13. 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 assessment years 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. Sh…

Dilip Variya HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, more specifically when the assessee is carrying the business of

ITA 7597/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Dilip Variya Huf, Income Tax Officer-25(3)(2) 602, Shri Aashirwad Chs, Mumbai बनाम/ Shankar Lane, Opp. Shankar Vs. Mandir, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400101 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aachd1838F

…ble High Court. The decision in the case of Janak S. Rangabala vs ACIT 11 SOT 627, wherein, it was held that frequency and magnitude of transaction cannot be the criteria for determining the head of income. The ratio laid down in NEO Polypack (P.) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del.) supports the case of the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Finally the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on…

A.C.I.T.19(2), Mumbai vs. Alka Kiritkumar Upadhyay, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 2617/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2617/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) A.C.I.T. – 19(2), Smt. Alka Kiritkumar बनाम/ Room No. 315, 3 Rd Floor, Upadhyay, V. Piramal Chambers, Alka Bldg., 6T H Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai –400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapu0228Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…w that in the absence of contrary material, consistency has to be maintained. For which we are fortified by following decisions:- 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…

M/S. Hyundai Rotem Company, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the ground raised by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1722/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.(Tp) No.1722/Del/2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Hyundai Rotem Company, Vs. Acit, Circle 2(1)(1), N-3, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi South Extnsion, Park No.1, Delhi-110 049 Gir / Pan :Aabck6367L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92C

…T reported in 193 ITR 321 (SC); 11 I.T.A.No.1722./Del/2015 b) Tamasek Holdings Advisors (I) (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 80 (Mumbai-Trib); c) Britons Carpet Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2011) 46 SOT 289 (Pune); d) CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del). 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that these comparables have been considered and has been decided consistently in the preceding and subsequent assessment year, in a particular manner, for the sake of consistency, the same view should continue to prevail in the year under consideration, unless there is some material change in the facts. 6. On the…

Agya Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to

ITA/292/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 147Section 22Section 28

…ITAT were in error in coming to a contrary conclusion. They appear to have overlooked that the Assessee had consistently treated the licence fees collected as business income since AY 1982-83. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del) in similar ITA Nos. 290/2004, 291/2004, 292/2004 & 293/2004 Page 16 of 16 circumstances, applying the rule of consistency, the Court declined to frame a question of law urged by the Revenue that the licence fee earned by the owner of the property ought to be treated as income from house property and no…

Agya Ram vs. Commmissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to

ITA/290/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 147Section 22Section 28

…ITAT were in error in coming to a contrary conclusion. They appear to have overlooked that the Assessee had consistently treated the licence fees collected as business income since AY 1982-83. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del) in similar ITA Nos. 290/2004, 291/2004, 292/2004 & 293/2004 Page 16 of 16 circumstances, applying the rule of consistency, the Court declined to frame a question of law urged by the Revenue that the licence fee earned by the owner of the property ought to be treated as income from house property and no…

Darshana B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 13(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5462/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi Acit, Circle-13(3), 31, Broach Street, Devraj 430, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th बनाम/ Ratanshi Marg, Iron Market, Floor, M.K. Marg, Vs. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400009. Pan. No. Aabpd7806Q (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(34)

…ermissible. 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar Ahuja, New Delhi

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

ITA 6579/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Chadha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 68

…lt upon, no addition u/s 68 of the Act is called for. 14. Further, even on the principle of consistency, no addition is called for and the claim is to be allowed, as held in ‘Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT’, 193 ITR 321 (SC), ‘CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd.’, 245 ITR 492 (Del) and ‘CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd.’, 281 ITR 346 (Del). 15. Still further, evidently, it was not scrutiny assessments for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, that u/s 143 (3) of the Act, these creditors were accepted by the department. Therefore, the facts and circumstances for the year under consideration remaining ent…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kalypto Risk Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 32

…ss and until contrary material/facts are brought on record. On the issue of consistency, we are supported by following decisions:- 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…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

…s Ltd.: 358 ITR 295 (SC) (ii) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: 193 ITR 321 (SC) (iii) DIT (E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del) ITA 196 Del 2013 Ranbaxy Laboratories limited V ACIT A.Y. 2008-09 Page 71 of 134 (iv) CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 (Del.) (v) CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (vi) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (vii) CIT v. P. KhrishnaWarrier: 208 ITR 823 (Ker) (viii) CIT v Harishchandra Gupta 132 ITR 799 (Ori) (ix) CIT v. SewaBharti Haryana Pradesh: 325 ITR 599 (P&H) (x) CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries Limited.: ITA 889/…

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

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

ITA 4613/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 V/S V.S.P. Stores Private Limited Dcit, Circle-17 (1), Room Number- 11, Community Centre Saket, 221, Cr Building, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaacv0064A (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: 'H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 V/s V.S.P. Stores Private Limited DCIT, circle-17 (1), Room Number- 11, Community Centre Saket, 221, CR building, New Delhi. New Delhi PAN: AAACV0064A (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. BN Goswami, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, Senior DR Date of hearing 16/02/2016 Date of pronouncement 30/03/2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 5th August, 2011 of the Ld. Commissioner…

Alka K. Upadhyaya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6227/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 Alka K. Upadhaya, Acit, 6-Alka Building, 15Th Road, Circle-19(2), बनाम/ South Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Santacruz (W), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400054 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaapu0288Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…of contrary material, consistency has to be maintained. For which we are fortified by following decisions:- 9 Alka K. Upadhyaya 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…

Kalpak Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5281/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.5281/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Kalpak Builders, Acit 19(3), Kalpak House, 128 Turner Road, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400050 Vs Mumbai-12 Pan:Aadfk1518J िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Sathe िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Shri M.Murli सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing :08- 03 -2016 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :16-03-2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A)-30,Mumbai, Dated 6.6.2014,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Builders & Financial Services,Filed Its Return Of Income On 23.09. 2010, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 14,08, 886/-.The Assessing Officer (Ao) Finalised The Assessment On 13.03.2013, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, Determin -Ing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 44, 66, 480/-.

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli
Section 143Section 254(1)

…ng a different view.Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the view taken for the earlier assessment years continued to be applicable even for the year under consideration.” In the case of Neo Poly Pack (P.)Ltd. (245 ITR 492 Delhi-HC)the rental income from the factory building owned by the company,which was assessed under the head ''Business" for all the earlier years starting from the assessment year 1984-85 onwards,was sought to be assessed as income from house property for the assessment year 1989-90.When the matter travelled to the Hon’ble High Court,it held as u…

Preeti G Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 11(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7557/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2004-05 Mrs. Preeti G Mehta, Income Tax Officer, 22, Bennett Villa, Ward-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 27, Wode House, Colaba, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400001 M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Adrpm3856E

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(4)

…al principle says that consistency has to be maintained. Our view find supports from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- 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…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…huram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers [2003] 264 ITR 276 (Delhi) and CIT v. Neo Poly ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT Pack P. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) followed." (v) On the rule of consistency, kind reference is invited to the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Gopala Naicker Bangaru, 297. [2012] 344 ITR For ready reference, the Heads note of this case is reproduced below: “The devotees of the assessee spiritual leader, made their offerings voluntarily to him at…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…huram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers [2003] 264 ITR 276 (Delhi) and CIT v. Neo Poly ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT Pack P. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) followed." (v) On the rule of consistency, kind reference is invited to the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Gopala Naicker Bangaru, 297. [2012] 344 ITR For ready reference, the Heads note of this case is reproduced below: “The devotees of the assessee spiritual leader, made their offerings voluntarily to him at…

Auto Finance Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4458/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)

…be followed. On the 5 Auto Finance Enterprises issue of consistency, we are supported by the following judicial pronouncements:- 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…

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 733/MUM/2011[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 44Section 44B

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.6394/Mum/08 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-Not Applicable आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy…

Dy. Director of I-Tax (Int. Tax)-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nuclear Power Corpn. of India Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6394/MUM/2008[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 195(2)Section 254(1)Section 44Section 44B

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.6394/Mum/08 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-Not Applicable आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy…