Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT

63 ITR 416Supreme Court of India1967#9113 most cited

What is Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT authority for?

The principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, meaning previous year's assessments are not binding on subsequent years, though they can serve as evidence.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

res judicata · income tax · Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT · Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT · subsequent assessments · evidentiary value

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 131 of the Income Tax ActSection 133(6) of the Income Tax ActSection 250 of the Income Tax ActSection 276CC of the Income Tax ActSection 68 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 226section 80absection 14a(1)section 211explanation to section 37section 115jasection 114period of holdingsection 80jsection 135prohibited by lawrule of consistency

Judgments citing Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Satish Jalan, Shillong

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 62/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat. 3. There Are Currently More Than 300 Time Barred Assessment & 200 Penalty Cases Are Pending In This Office. Due To Shortage Of Manpower It Was Delayed In The Filing Of Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat.

Section 131Section 250Section 68

…on in a following year but ordinarily there is no bar against investigation by the Assessing Officer of the same facts on which a decision of an earlier year was arrived at. We may draw strength from the cases of Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 416 (SC) and Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC). In M.M. Ipoh v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 106, the Supreme Court held that the rule of res judicata does not apply so as to make a decision on question of facts or law in a proceeding for assessment in one year binding in another year and that the assessment and the facts found are conclu…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2973/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…n A.Y. 2009-10 acted in consonance with the consistent view adopted by the Department itself whereas the principle of res- judicata is not applicable in income tax proceedings as held by the Apex court in the case of Joint Family of Udayan Chinu Bhai vs. CIT, 63 ITR 416(SC) and in the case of M.M. Ipoh vs. CIT, 67 ITR 106(SC) and new facts such as legal value of letter interpreting DTAA were expounded by CIT." 8. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,' the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam, 108 ITR 345 wherein in was that held th…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2972/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…n A.Y. 2009-10 acted in consonance with the consistent view adopted by the Department itself whereas the principle of res- judicata is not applicable in income tax proceedings as held by the Apex court in the case of Joint Family of Udayan Chinu Bhai vs. CIT, 63 ITR 416(SC) and in the case of M.M. Ipoh vs. CIT, 67 ITR 106(SC) and new facts such as legal value of letter interpreting DTAA were expounded by CIT." 8. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,' the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam, 108 ITR 345 wherein in was that held th…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2342/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…n A.Y. 2009-10 acted in consonance with the consistent view adopted by the Department itself whereas the principle of res- judicata is not applicable in income tax proceedings as held by the Apex court in the case of Joint Family of Udayan Chinu Bhai vs. CIT, 63 ITR 416(SC) and in the case of M.M. Ipoh vs. CIT, 67 ITR 106(SC) and new facts such as legal value of letter interpreting DTAA were expounded by CIT." 8. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,' the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam, 108 ITR 345 wherein in was that held th…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2341/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…n A.Y. 2009-10 acted in consonance with the consistent view adopted by the Department itself whereas the principle of res- judicata is not applicable in income tax proceedings as held by the Apex court in the case of Joint Family of Udayan Chinu Bhai vs. CIT, 63 ITR 416(SC) and in the case of M.M. Ipoh vs. CIT, 67 ITR 106(SC) and new facts such as legal value of letter interpreting DTAA were expounded by CIT." 8. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,' the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam, 108 ITR 345 wherein in was that held th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 5784/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…4; & 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b) On the issue of consistency reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT 63 ITR 416 has decided that each year’s assessment is separate from that of earlier years, therefore, the taxing authorities are not bound to follow the decision taken in earlier years. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts in law in deleting addition of Rs.716955/- on account of disallowance of quality improvement expenses ignoring that such expenditure are i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3440/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…4; & 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b) On the issue of consistency reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT 63 ITR 416 has decided that each year’s assessment is separate from that of earlier years, therefore, the taxing authorities are not bound to follow the decision taken in earlier years. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts in law in deleting addition of Rs.716955/- on account of disallowance of quality improvement expenses ignoring that such expenditure are i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3439/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…4; & 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b) On the issue of consistency reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT 63 ITR 416 has decided that each year’s assessment is separate from that of earlier years, therefore, the taxing authorities are not bound to follow the decision taken in earlier years. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts in law in deleting addition of Rs.716955/- on account of disallowance of quality improvement expenses ignoring that such expenditure are i…

M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 2201/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…4; & 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b) On the issue of consistency reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT 63 ITR 416 has decided that each year’s assessment is separate from that of earlier years, therefore, the taxing authorities are not bound to follow the decision taken in earlier years. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts in law in deleting addition of Rs.716955/- on account of disallowance of quality improvement expenses ignoring that such expenditure are i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3942/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…4; & 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b) On the issue of consistency reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT 63 ITR 416 has decided that each year’s assessment is separate from that of earlier years, therefore, the taxing authorities are not bound to follow the decision taken in earlier years. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts in law in deleting addition of Rs.716955/- on account of disallowance of quality improvement expenses ignoring that such expenditure are i…

Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3885/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

…4; & 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b) On the issue of consistency reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT 63 ITR 416 has decided that each year’s assessment is separate from that of earlier years, therefore, the taxing authorities are not bound to follow the decision taken in earlier years. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts in law in deleting addition of Rs.716955/- on account of disallowance of quality improvement expenses ignoring that such expenditure are i…

M/S R. K. Mondal and Brothers, Burdwan vs. ITO, WD-1, Durgapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 339/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.339/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S. R.K.Mondal & Brothers, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), City Centre Village&Post-Kajoragram, Durgapur , Kolkata District –Burdwan, Pin-713338 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfr 6294 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dipten Roy, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukharjee, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Durgapur, In Appeal No.125/Cit(A)/Dgp/2012-13, Dated 20.01.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section.144/185 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 30.11.2012. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Is That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 13.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,70,399/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & The Ao Completed Assessment After Making The Addition At Rs.30,71,400/- By Applying The Profit Rate At @8% Of Gross M/S R.K.Mondal & Brothers

For Appellant: Shri Dipten Roy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukharjee, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.339/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/s. R.K.Mondal & Brothers, Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), City Centre Village&Post-Kajoragram, Durgapur , Kolkata District –Burdwan, Pin-713338 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFR 6294 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Dipten Roy, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Pinaki Mukharjee, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement…

Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT 441 1TR 529 and in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs CIT (63 ITR 416) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax