M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax

1 SCC 659Supreme Court of India1992#4942 most cited

What is M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

The consistent treatment of a matter across different assessment years should not be changed without new facts justifying the change.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Radhasoami Satsang · rule of consistency · assessment years · tax treatment · change in assessment · new facts · Supreme Court

Sections most often in play

Section 32Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(ii)Section 56(2)(iii)Section 57(ii)Section 11Section 12Section 14
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

rule of consistencysection 57profits and gains of business or professionprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 32income from other sourcessection 11companyindiabusinesssection 14nfac

Judgments citing M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax

H & M Housing Finance and Leasing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

…rs has been treated in one way or the other and that has been allowed to continue such position ought not be changed without any new fact requiring such a direction. (See: Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1991160 Тахтап 248/193 ITR 321/(1992) 1 SCC 659 (SC). The decision of the Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has been referred in a decision of a recent origin in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2017) 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449/201717 SCC 421. 14. We may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Prin…

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

…sment years has been treated in one way or the other and that has been allowed to continue such position ought not be changed without any new fact requiring such a direction. (See: M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 1 SCC 659). The decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Radhasoami Satsang (Supra) has been referred in a decision of a recent origin in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, & Anr.[2017] 7 SCC 421 14. We may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Qu…

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotel and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

…sment years has been treated in one way or the other and that has been allowed to continue such position ought not be changed without any new fact requiring such a direction. (See: M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1992] 1 SCC 659). The decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Radhasoami Satsang (Supra) has been referred in a decision of a recent origin in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, & Anr.[2017] 7 SCC 421 14. We may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Qu…

The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-003291-003294 - 2009Supreme Court16 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 21

…2024 INSC 781 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3291­3294 OF 2009 Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. … Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax … Respondent with Civil Appeal Nos.11200­11201 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1445­1446 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.11202 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4843 of 2020) Civil Appeal No.11203 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7055 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.11204 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7404 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.11205 of 2024 (Arising out o…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Delhi vs. M/S Bhishansaroop Ram

ITA/953/2019HC Delhi28 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

…real income of the assessee. Consequently, there is no reason for us to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 25. In Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [(1992) 1 SCC 659 : (1992) 193 ITR 321] this Court did not think it appropriate to allow the reconsideration of an issue for a subsequent assessment year if the same ―fundamental aspect‖ permeates in different assessment years. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court referred to an interesting passage from Hoystead v. Taxation Commr. [1926 AC 155 : 1925 All…

National Petroleum Construction Company vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2) International Taxation New Delhi

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

C.A. No.-004964-004964 - 2022Supreme Court29 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

Section 143(1)Section 197

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4964 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 9233 OF 2020) NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ....Appellant (s) versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI & ANR. .…Respondent (s) J U D G M E N T Indira Banerjee, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is against the judgment and final order dated 20th December 2019 passed by High Court of Delhi dismissing the Writ Petition being Writ Petition (C) No.8527 of 2019 filed by the Appellant against the refu…

M/S. S P Chips Potato Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 548/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143Section 263

…3 Supp. (1) SCR 172; Devilal v. STO [1965] 1 SCR 686; Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 1 SCR 913; M.M. Ipoh v. CIT [1968] 1 SCR 65; Kapur Chand v. Tax Recovery Officer [1969] 1 SCR 691; CIT, W.B. v. Durga Prasad AIR 1971 SC 2439; Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT[1992] 1 SCC 659; AIR 1992 SC 377; Society of Medical Officers v. Hope 1960 AC 55; Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Council 1925 All ER 675; 1926 AC 94 : 95 LJPC 33; Turner on Res Judicata, 2nd Edn. para 219, p. 193]. 6.2 In the instant set of facts, we note that the claim of higher depreciation at the rate of 30%, which is available to the assessees…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Hamdard National Foundation (India)

ITA/144/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…ide by the principle of consistency. In support, he places reliance on the following judgments: i. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 459; ii. M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1992) 1 SCC 659; and iii. Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (2004) 12 SCC 42. 17. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000607 ITA 142/2021 & connected matters…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Hamdrd National Foundation (India)

ITA/115/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…ide by the principle of consistency. In support, he places reliance on the following judgments: i. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Excel Industries Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 459; ii. M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1992) 1 SCC 659; and iii. Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (2004) 12 SCC 42. 17. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000608 ITA 142/2021 & connected matters…

Shri Mohan C Suvarna vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

WP/10773/2018HC Karnataka14 Jul 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.10773/2018 (T-CUS) C/W WRIT PETITION No.4628/2018 (T-CUS) IN W.P. No.10773/2018 Between: Shri Mohan C. Suvarna Director (Finance and Admin) M/s. Givaudan India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Vinarom Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No.26, 2nd Cross Jigani Industrial Area Anekal Taluk, Jigani Bangalore Rural - 562 106. (Aged about 59 years) … Petitioner (By Sri S.S. Naganand, Senior Advocate a/w Sriyuths B. Venugopal & Hariradhakri…

Chander Batra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

ITA 808/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Virmani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ystem of accounting which has been accepted by the Revenue, converse view cannot be taken by the Revenue as the Revenue is required to follow the rule of consistency as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT – (1992) 1 SCC 659. Moreover, the entire exercise is revenue neutral because the assessee has paid the tax in 2007-08 when the income was actually accrued to him. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that AO to verify the facts inter alia that the assessee has offered the amount of tax qua the commission received during the year…

M/S T T K Prestige Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/30388/2015HC Karnataka10 Aug 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…NCOME-TAX vs. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.,’ vs. [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] [b] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD.’ [2012] 348 ITR 485 (DELHI). [c] M/s. RADHASOAMI SATSANG, SAOMI BAGH, AGRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [(1992) 1 SCC 659]. [d] ‘‘MESSEE DUSSELDORF INDIA P. LTD., vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ANOTHER’ [(2010) 320 ITR 565 [DELHI]. [e] ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS vs. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) [f] ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. I.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD.,’ […

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Anjala Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Anjala Exhibitors Pvt Ltd, Circle-1(1), 10796, Jhandewalan Road, New Delhi Nabi Karim, New Delhi Pan:Aaaca0219J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ranjan Chabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SK Jain, DR
Section 143Section 24

…(1) SCR 172 ; Devilal Vs. STO (1965) 1 SCR 686; Udatab Chinubhai vs. CIT (1967 )1 SCR 913; M.M Ipoh vs. CIT *1968) 1 SCR 65; Kapur Chand vs TRO (1969) 1 SCR 691; CIT vs Durga Prasad AIR 1971 SC 2439; Radhaswami Satsang vs. CIT (1991) 100 CTR (SC) 267 : (1992) 1 SCC 659: AIR 1992 SC 377; Sciety of Medical Council (1925) All ER 675: (1926) AC 94 : 95 LJPC 33; Turner on Res judicata, 2nd Edition, Para 219,P. 193). In the same judgment (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court further proceeded to observe that, to quote: A decision reached in one year would be a cogent factor in the determination of a similar question in a foll…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Nagarbail Salt-Owners

Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

ITA/100067/2015HC Karnataka19 Nov 2016

Bench: Offering The Profit For Tax?”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(31)Section 260ASection 44ASection 80P(1)(d)

…nt order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 5.5.2014, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1992)1 SCC 659,1 allowed the appeal in part by holding that the 1 (1992)1 SCC 659 : 7 : Bye-laws cannot be segregated and read in isolation to hold that the income generated was the income of the appellant-assessee. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the ITAT. Feeling further ag…

Vatsala Shenoy vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

…t the assets of the firm were sold to AOP-3 as a going concern with further premise that it was a slump sale. It is pointed out that the firm was doing business even after the winding up petition was filed and as a going concern, it was put to sale. 7 (1992) 1 SCC 659 : 193 ITR 321 8 (2014) 13 SCC 459 : 358 ITR 295 Page 19 JUDGMENT 19 21) Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, has refuted the aforesaid premise of the argument by submitting that though it was sold as a going concern, nevertheless, the assets were that of a dissolved firm as the firm had come to an end on December 0…

Vatsala Shenoy vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

…t the assets of the firm were sold to AOP-3 as a going concern with further premise that it was a slump sale. It is pointed out that the firm was doing business even after the winding up petition was filed and as a going concern, it was put to sale. 7 (1992) 1 SCC 659 : 193 ITR 321 8 (2014) 13 SCC 459 : 358 ITR 295 Page 19 JUDGMENT 19 21) Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, has refuted the aforesaid premise of the argument by submitting that though it was sold as a going concern, nevertheless, the assets were that of a dissolved firm as the firm had come to an end on December 0…

Director of Inco:Me-Tax-I vs. Jc Bamford Excavators Limited

ITA/526/2016HC Delhi09 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…m a settled position has to be spelt out which conspicuously is absent in the present case. In this regard, we may remind ourselves of what W.P.(C) 480/2016 & W.P.(C) 526/2016 Page 15 of 15 has been observed by this Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 1 SCC 659: (1992) 193 ITR 321. “16. We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way o…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Tirumala Milk Products Private Limited

Accordingly, the present revision is allowed

ITTA/389/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

…Court No. - 59 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 389 of 2010 Revisionist :- M/S Kanpur Glass And Picture House Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Present revision has been filed by the applicant- assessee against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Agra, dated 23.12.2009, passed in second appeal no. 179 of 2009, for A.Y. 2000-01 (U.P.). By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed the second appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the re-ass…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. NMDC Limited

ITTA/342/2013HC Telangana21 Aug 2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. Sri Macha Srinivas Goud

ITTA/344/2013HC Telangana21 Aug 2013
M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1 SCC 659) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax