Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner

99 ITR 135Supreme Court of India1975#3606 most cited

What is Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner authority for?

A court decision serves as a precedent based on its specific facts, requiring tax authorities and tribunals to apply its reasoning to new cases with careful consideration of the individual circumstances.

33

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

Mahendra Mills Ltd. · Appellate Assistant Commissioner · 99 ITR 135 SC · precedent on own facts · apply ratio with care · discern facts · tax authorities · tribunals

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153DSection 148Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 245csettlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)section 135asection 144basection 245dsection 244

Judgments citing Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 35/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…t the irregularity supervened not at the initial stage, but at a later stage of the proceedings would not lead to nullity. Learned Departmental Representatives further placed reliance on the case law in Mahendra Mills Ltd. vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner 99 ITR 135 (SC) for the proposition that a decision is a precedent on its own facts; that each case presents its own features; and that Income Tax authorities and Tribunals are supposed to apply the ratio of a decision to the facts of particular cases with due care and discernment. They also placed reliance on the case laws in the cases of 155 ITR 120 (SC) D…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/ALLD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…t the irregularity supervened not at the initial stage, but at a later stage of the proceedings would not lead to nullity. Learned Departmental Representatives further placed reliance on the case law in Mahendra Mills Ltd. vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner 99 ITR 135 (SC) for the proposition that a decision is a precedent on its own facts; that each case presents its own features; and that Income Tax authorities and Tribunals are supposed to apply the ratio of a decision to the facts of particular cases with due care and discernment. They also placed reliance on the case laws in the cases of 155 ITR 120 (SC) D…

Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 337/ALLD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…t the irregularity supervened not at the initial stage, but at a later stage of the proceedings would not lead to nullity. Learned Departmental Representatives further placed reliance on the case law in Mahendra Mills Ltd. vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner 99 ITR 135 (SC) for the proposition that a decision is a precedent on its own facts; that each case presents its own features; and that Income Tax authorities and Tribunals are supposed to apply the ratio of a decision to the facts of particular cases with due care and discernment. They also placed reliance on the case laws in the cases of 155 ITR 120 (SC) D…

Shri Anilkumar M. Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2239/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…the assessee in July 2011. The Ld. AR further submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MC Dowell & Co. vs. CTO, 154 ITR 148 (SC) is not applicable in assessee’s case. The Ld. AR quoted the citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court being 99 ITR 135 and 224 ITR 362 and stated that in case of the assessee there is no information or material relating to the assessee at all and it was the proceedings against Alpha Graphic India Limited and there was no incriminating material against the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that summons were served after the date fixed for hearing and, therefor…

Crafts Council of Tamilnadu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/CHNY/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. M/S.Crafts Council Of Tamilnadu, The Dy. Commissioner- 339, Vue Grande, Chinnasamy Road, Of Income Tax New Siddhapudur, (Exemptions), Coimbatore-641 044. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaaac 1086 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.P.S.Sadasivan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.08.2023

For Appellant: Mr.P.S.Sadasivan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 167ASection 246

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ !ायपीठ, चे$ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा"", एवं 'ी मंजूनाथा.जी, माननीय लेखा सद) के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.492/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 v. M/s.Crafts Council of Tamilnadu, The Dy. Commissioner- 339, VUE Grande, Chinnasamy Road, of Income Tax New Siddhapudur, (Exemptions), Coimbatore-641 044. Coimbatore. [PAN: AAAAC 1086 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.P.S.Sadasivan,…

Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT(OSD) Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1345/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of Name of ITA/IT(SS)A No. Year Appellant Respondent Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. 603, Shikhar DCIT Building, Circle-8, 1. 2000-01 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 PAN:AAJCS1563N Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. 603, Shikhar DCIT(OSD), 2007-08 Building, 2. Circle-8, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 PAN:AAJCS1563N Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. ACIT(OSD), ITA No. 603, Shikh…

Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Crcle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 722/AHD/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of Name of ITA/IT(SS)A No. Year Appellant Respondent Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. 603, Shikhar DCIT Building, Circle-8, 1. 2000-01 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 PAN:AAJCS1563N Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. 603, Shikhar DCIT(OSD), 2007-08 Building, 2. Circle-8, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 PAN:AAJCS1563N Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. ACIT(OSD), ITA No. 603, Shikh…

Molex India Tooling Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 839/BANG/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Membe

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 92

…ond issue can therefore be decided by directing the AO to allow depreciation, which is to be allowed to an Assessee as a consequence, despite a claim for such depreciation not having been made specifically, as laid down in the decision of Mahendra Mills Ltd., 99 ITR 135 (SC). Thus we allow the alternative prayer of the Assessee for allowing depreciation. 4. As far as the first issue of determination of ALP is concerned, the facts are that the Assessee is a subsidiary of Molex India Limited, which company in turn is a subsidiary of Moles International Inc., USA. Both the Assessee and Molex International Inc., are…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 405/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC); ii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 361 (Bom); iii) Bharti Infratel Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi); iv) Pr. CIT v. Tupperware India P. Ltd. (2016) 284 CTR 68 (Del); v) Mahendra Mills Ltd. vs. AAC (1975) 99 ITR 135 (SC); 11. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the reasons to believe must be based on tangible material or information extraneous to record. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not brought on record any tangible material or information so as to establish a case of escapement of income. The whole basis of re…

Sgdc India P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 403/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC); ii) NYK Line (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 361 (Bom); iii) Bharti Infratel Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi); iv) Pr. CIT v. Tupperware India P. Ltd. (2016) 284 CTR 68 (Del); v) Mahendra Mills Ltd. vs. AAC (1975) 99 ITR 135 (SC); 11. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the reasons to believe must be based on tangible material or information extraneous to record. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not brought on record any tangible material or information so as to establish a case of escapement of income. The whole basis of re…

DCIT, 1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Smt Vimlesh Kumar Singh, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 21/BIL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Shital Verma, DR
Section 10(38)

…ange and the legal heir's late husband has made the transactions with the said broker and she cannot be made answerable in this regard. It was contended that as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Mills Ltd. vs. P.B.Desai, [1975] 99 ITR 135 (SC), precedents need to be applied with due care. The assessee has also reproduced the following observations of the Hn’ble Apex Court to support his stand :- “In our opinion, there is no room for any such apprehension. It must be remembered that a decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. The income-tax autho…

JCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. System Controls & Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is allowed and the appeal filed by assessee is

ITA 5335/DEL/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 1994-95

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Anadi N. Mishrasystem Controls & Transformers Pvt. Jcit, Ltd., Range-2, Cgo-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal
Section 145(2)Section 234BSection 40A(3)

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION v (JM) (AM) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "G": NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N. MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER System Controls & Transformers Pvt. JCIT, Ltd., Range-2, CGO-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) And System Controls & Transformers Pvt. Ltd., JCIT, Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Range-2, CGO-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Hapur Road, Ghaziabad PAN: AACCS0354G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue b y : Sh. SK Jain, Sr. DR Assessee by: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal, FCA O R DE R…

Shri Suresh Verma, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2016AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 14A

…to take into consideration the amount so surrendered as part of closing stock and allowed to carried forward to succeeding year as opening stock in view of the decision in the case of Mahendra Mills Ltd. vs P. B. Desai Appellate Assistant Commissioner, [1975] 99 ITR 135 (SC). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the addition by the Ld. AO of Rs.64,41,401/-(3,81,13,064/- - 3,16,71,663/-), when the amount of Rs. 3,81,13,064/- has been directed to be charged 2 AY: 2010-11 under the head other sources. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the c…