H.A. Shah & Co. v. CIT

30 ITR 618High Court1956#2241 most cited

What is H.A. Shah & Co. v. CIT authority for?

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not strictly apply to Income Tax authorities, including the Tribunal. However, an earlier decision on the same question should not be reopened if it was arrived at after due inquiry, was not arbitrary or perverse, and no fresh facts are presented.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

H.A. Shah & Co. v. CIT · res judicata income tax · estoppel income tax authorities · ITAT previous findings · Tribunal departing earlier decision · Section 143(3) · Section 142(1) · assessment year principle · non-applicability res judicata

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(1)Section 115JAASection 115JBSection 142(1)Section 144CSection 14ASection 2(1A)

Issues it is cited on

section 80lsection 80lasection 80ib(4)section 80ia(5)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80ia(8)section 2(1a)section 2(1)initial assessment yearresulting companysection 10(1)captive service provider

Judgments citing H.A. Shah & Co. v. CIT

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…es have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. The above principles have been accepted in the undernoted case: • Shah & Co (HA) v. CIT (1956) (30 ITR 618) (Bom) • Amalgamated Coalfields vs. Janapada Sabha AIR 1964 SC 1013 • South India Trust Association vs. Telugu Church Council (1996) 2 SCC 520 • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 51. …. 52. …. 53. …. 54. …. 55. We also found that the loading and unloading of goods is being done by the integrated Rail system set up by the assesse…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…es have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. The above principles have been accepted in the undernoted case: • Shah & Co (HA) v. CIT (1956) (30 ITR 618) (Bom) • Amalgamated Coalfields vs. Janapada Sabha AIR 1964 SC 1013 • South India Trust Association vs. Telugu Church Council (1996) 2 SCC 520 • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 51. …. 52. …. 53. …. 54. …. 55. We also found that the loading and unloading of goods is being done by the integrated Rail system set up by the assesse…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4063/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…es have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. The above principles have been accepted in the undernoted case: • Shah & Co (HA) v. CIT (1956) (30 ITR 618) (Bom) • Amalgamated Coalfields vs. Janapada Sabha AIR 1964 SC 1013 • South India Trust Association vs. Telugu Church Council (1996) 2 SCC 520 • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 51. …. 52. …. 53. …. 54. …. 55. We also found that the loading and unloading of goods is being done by the integrated Rail system set up by the assesse…

Jsw Stel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…es have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. The above principles have been accepted in the undernoted case: • Shah & Co (HA) v. CIT (1956) (30 ITR 618) (Bom) • Amalgamated Coalfields vs. Janapada Sabha AIR 1964 SC 1013 • South India Trust Association vs. Telugu Church Council (1996) 2 SCC 520 • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 51. …. 52. …. 53. …. 54. …. 55. We also found that the loading and unloading of goods is being done by the integrated Rail system set up by the assesse…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S Arihant Pulication (India) Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5405/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

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

Section 145(3)

…f accounting and system of stock taking. 2.7. Before discussing the merits of the case, it would be useful tomake reference to certain principles of law which have evolved in the various judicial pronouncements. Firstly, as laid down in the case of H.A. Shah (30 ITR 618), the Income tax Authorities should be extremely slow to depart ITA No. 5405/Del./2013 & 6640/Del./2014 15 from a finding given by it earlier notwithstanding that the principle of res judicata may not be applicable to income tax proceedings. This is so because the principle of natural justice require that if there is prior determination by the I…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…ies have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. The above principles have been accepted in the undernoted case: • Shah & Co (HA) v. CIT (1956) (30 ITR 618) (Bom) • Amalgamated Coalfields vs. Janapada Sabha AIR 1964 SC 1013 • South India Trust Association vs. Telugu Church Council (1996) 2 SCC 520 • Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., 51. From the record we also found that the overall profits of the company have increased due to such commercial benefits and…

Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 493/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…e binding on us as judicial discipline require that. This Tribunal is bound to consider those decisions and the Tribunal is not bound with the decision of the coordinate Bench. The jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of H.A. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 618, 625 (Bom.) even took the view that in case fresh material facts came to the knowledge of subsequent bench, the decision of coordinate bench is not binding. In this regard, Hon'ble High Court observed as under :- "Nor are we satisfied that in order to enable the second Tribunal to depart from the finding of the first Tribunal it is essential that…

ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Biswajit Das, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 473/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

…e binding on us as judicial discipline require that. This Tribunal is bound to consider those decisions and the Tribunal is not bound with the decision of the coordinate Bench. The jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of H.A. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 618, 625 (Bom.) even took the view that in case fresh material facts came to the knowledge of subsequent bench, the decision of coordinate bench is not binding. In this regard, Hon'ble High Court observed as under :- "Nor are we satisfied that in order to enable the second Tribunal to depart from the finding of the first Tribunal it is essential that…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Malabar Hill Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 6197/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit-5(2), M/S Malabar Hill Club R. No.571, Aaykar Bhavan Limited, बनाम/ M.K. Road, Il Palazzo, B.K. Kher Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacw3868M

Section 144

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-5(2), M/s Malabar Hill Club R. No.571, Aaykar Bhavan Limited, बनाम/ M.K. Road, IL PALAZZO, B.K. Kher Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAACW3868M राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Mohammed Rizwan-DR "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri J.D. Mistri, Shri Niraj…

Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1641/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.daws, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

…court that the principle of consistency cannot be ignored. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgements: Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321(SC) CIT vs. A. K. J. Security Printers (2003) 264 ITR 276 H. A. Shah & Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 618, 625 The Assessee prayed that the income in question be treated as business income. 10. The CIT(A) in the appeal for A.Y.2007-08, however, confirmed the order of AO by observing as follows :- 3.2 It is seen that an identical issue was involved in the appellant's group concern Oberoi Building and Investments Pvt. Ltd. in AY. 2005-06. In that case,…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Rawassa Construction, Mumbai

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

ITA 1065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit Cen Cir 9 Rawassa Construction 9Th Floor, Old, Cgo 638, Gori House, बनाम/ Bldg. M.K. Rd. Tps-Iii, 8Th Road, Khar (W) Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400052 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaafr6170N Revenue By Shri Omprakash Meena (Dr) Respondent By Shri R.C. Jain (Ar)

Section 143(3)

…cts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was right in invoking principle laid down in the case of Radhaswami Satsang Vs. CIT (1991) 100 CIR (SC) 267 and jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of H.A. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT / CEPT 1956) 30 ITR 618 (Bom).” 2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri Omprakash Meena, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri R.C. Jain, Departmental Representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue. 3. We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders passed by the lower authorities. The only effective issue rai…