How many judgments cite New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (49 ITR 137), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 10(23BBA), Section 10AA, Section 10D, Section 133(6), Section 139.

New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

49 ITR 137Supreme Court of India1963#1936 most cited

What is New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not apply to income tax proceedings. Each assessment year's assessment is final only for that specific year and does not bind or govern assessments for subsequent years.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

New Jehangir Vakil Mills · 49 ITR 137 SC · res judicata income tax · estoppel income tax · each assessment year independent · finality of assessment · binding nature previous assessment · Section 143 · Section 148 · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 10(23BBA)Section 10AA Section 10D Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(4)deduction u/s 80ia section 80ia section 80i section 263 section 10 section 26 section 23 section 80 transfer section 143(1)section 148

Judgments citing New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

WTA/6/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…1/113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.T.A.No.1/2015 C/W W.T.A.No.2/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2015, W.T.A.No.4/2015, W.T.A.No.5/2015, W.T.A.No.6/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2014, W.T.A.No.1/2014 & W.T.A.No.2/2014 W.T.A. No.1/2015 Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. Wealth Tax Officer Ward-7(1), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: 1. Smt. Meenakshi De…

Ketan Pravinchandra Kamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 135/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ketan Pravinchandra Dcit, Central Circle- Kamdar, 111, Loha Bhavan, Vs. 7(3) Erstwhile- Acit, P.D. Mello Road, Carnac Central Circle-42, Bunder, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpk6092R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Paresh Shaparia, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B. Srinivas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Srinivas, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ketan Pravinchandra DCIT, Central Circle- Kamdar, 111, Loha Bhavan, Vs. 7(3) Erstwhile- ACIT, P.D. Mello Road, Carnac Central Circle-42, Bunder, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AABPK6092R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Paresh Shaparia, AR Revenue by : Mr. B. Srinivas, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 02/08/2018 Date of pronouncement : 21/08/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM The…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jammu vs. Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Jammu

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80

…ustment, in the instant appeal. We consider it relevant to discuss this aspect of the matter even as each year is an independent and separate unit of assessment, for which reference, among others, may be made to New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 137 (SC), explaining that there is no res judicata in matters of taxation. This is as the same has weighed with the ld. CIT(A), and without doubt, would have to be therefore held in view as well as in proper prospective. Being essentially a matter of fact, the same would require being determined with reference to the obtaining facts for the relevant y…

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aristo Realty Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4669/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-6(1)(2), M/S Aristo Reality R. No. 508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Development Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 601, Symphony Mumbai-400020. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan No. Aaacl0593J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Aarju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Lakhani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dilip Lakhani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia, DR

Section 143

…led law that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO’s decisions. A finding or decision of the income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. It has been held so in New Jehangir Vakil Mills v. CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC) and Sanakarlinga v. CIT 4 ITC 226, 241 (FB). M/s Aristo Reality 5 In the instant case the assessee has not filed details before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A) establishing that the amount in question was an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Accordingly, present case of the assessee is distinguishable from th…

M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…principle of res judicata, we may add, has no application in the proceedings under the Act. Why, in that case, the AO was bound to allow depreciation, and could not have adopted the view he does (refer, inter alia, New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 137 (SC)). The tribunal is, in our view, in view of its findings, obliged to direct so (refer Walchand and Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra)). Further, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) need not constrain himself by the opinion expressed by us in this order and, rather, is to take an independent decision, of course having regard to and taking guidance from our…

ITO, Chennai vs. A. Jagadeeswari, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 245/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.245/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) C.O. No. 30/Mds/2017 (In I.T.A. No.245/Mds/2017) Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, Vs The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : 20.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: 20.09.2017For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 80I

…in the present AY. 2008 - 09 as compared to the AY. 2007-08, the principle of consistency and precedence needs to be followed. 38. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax [1963]49 ITR 137 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that though the principle of 'res judicata' does not apply to taxation matters, however where there has been no change in facts, on grounds of consistency, the position cannot be changed in a subsequent year. A similar view was also held by the Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) as…

ACIT RG 22, Navi Mumbai vs. Sunderji Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 240/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal,ARFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR

Section 143(3)

…law that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO’s decisions. A finding or decision of the Income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a 8 subsequent year. It has been held so in New Jehangir Vakil Mills vs CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC) and Sanakarlinga vs. CIT 4 ITC 226, 241 (FB). The issue whether the nature of transaction of purchase and sale of share is investment or trading is purely a finding of facts. Therefore, each case involving a question of fact has to be decided on its own peculiar facts. It is not to be decided on the basis of finding of facts in another case.…

Ranjeet D Vaswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3481/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…led law that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO’s decisions. A finding or decision of the income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. It has been held so in New Jehangir Vakil Mills vs CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC) and Sanakarlinga vs. CIT 4 ITC 226, 241 (FB). Therefore we are not addressing to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel of the assessee that consistency should be made. 7.3 The learned counsel of the assessee has relied on the orders of the Tribunal as discussed at para para 7.1 here-in-above. There is only one judgment of the High C…

Dhano B Vaswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3480/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…led law that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO’s decisions. A finding or decision of the income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. It has been held so in New Jehangir Vakil Mills vs CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC) and Sanakarlinga vs. CIT 4 ITC 226, 241 (FB). Therefore we are not addressing to the decisions relied on by the learned counsel of the assessee that consistency should be made. 7.3 The learned counsel of the assessee has relied on the orders of the Tribunal as discussed at para para 7.1 here-in-above. There is only one judgment of the High C…

Khirmin D. Bharucha, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-12, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3757/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3757/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mrs. Khirmin D. Bharucha, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 4, 1St Floor, Income Tax (Osd)-12, V. Jehangir Mansion, Mumbai. Ist Marine Street, Fort, Mumbai -400036. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaepb 8187B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143(3)

…shares of the same company were purchased and sold repeatedly by the assessee . It was further observed that the principle of res-judicata is not applicable in the income-tax proceedings , relying on decision of New Jehangir Vakil Mills Limited v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 137(SC). The AO , therefore, held that the assessee is a trader in shares and the gains ITA 3757/Mum/2012 6 earned on shares transaction amounting to Rs. 2,47,33,233/- are to be brought to tax as business income and not as capital gains, vide assessment orders dated 16.12.2010 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S. Gupta Khandsari Works, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1990/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. S.C. Bansal, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…ata is not applicable in Income Tax proceedings . Reliance is placed on the following:- i. CIT Vs Syed Saddique Imam and Others (Patna) 111 ITR 475. ii. Tamilnadu Chlorates Vs JCIT (ITAT, Chennai) 98 ITD 1. iii. New Jahangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 49 ITR 137. iv. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. Vs. DCIT(Bom) 265 ITR 114. v. K. Bhaskaran Nair Vs CIT (Kerla) 177 Taxman 478. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of Gur, Rab, Khandsari and Gur-raskat from crushing of sugarcane. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.48,819/-. In resp…

Anand R Bahl, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed and that by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7706/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hiten M. Vasant (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth (DR)

Section 2(14)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7706/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Anand R. Bahl, Dy. CIT, Range 20(3), Saket, Plot No. 84, MIDC, 15th Piramal Chambers, 6th Floor, Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400093. PAN: AEBPB 7854 G (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.7332/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Anand R. Bahl, Jt.CIT, Range 20(1), Saket, Plot No. 84, MIDC, 15th Piramal Chambers, 6th Floor, Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400012…

Adman Advertising, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 796/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sanjay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 30Section 36Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 796/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Adman Advertising, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income F-137, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, tax, Circle-34(1), Delhi-110052 New Delhi-110052 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFA7942D Assessee by : Sanjay Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 14.05.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this…

Temasek Holdings Advisors India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)91), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 776/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…he principles of res judicata does not apply to Income-tax Proceedings and this view finds due support from 17 Tamasek Holdings Advisors India P Ltd decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Jahanghir Valal Mills Co. Ltd. vs CIT, reported in [1963] 49 ITR 137 which has been followed in several decisions. He further relied upon a decision of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd, reported in [1995] 211 ITR 635 for the proposition that, if a fresh look is necessitated on the existing facts on a closer and more intelligent analysis then a different view can be taken. Thus, here in t…

Johnson Matthey India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms but in the circumstances with

ITA/14/2013HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Section 260A

…ITA No. 14 of 2013 Page 1 of 21 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: September 23, 2015 Date of decision: October 30, 2015 ITA 14/2013 JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Srivastava, Ms. Varsha Bhattacharya and Mr Siddharth Joshi, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Raghavendra Singh and Mr.Shikhar Garg, Advocates. CORAM: JUST…

Johnson Matthey India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms but in the circumstances with

ITA-14/2013HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Section 260A

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. United Liner Agencies of India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 970/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, M/S United Liner Agencies Of Cc-6(4), R. No.32(1), India P. Ltd. बनाम/ Ground Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Office Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road No.801, C-Wing, Behind Mumbai-400020 Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacu5182C Shri Narendra Kumar Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Y. P. Trivedi & Usha Dalal

Section 80Section 80I

…ata which according to the well established law is not applicable to Income tax matters. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Jahangir 19 M/s United Linger Agencies of India Pvt. Ltd.. Vakil Mill Company Ltd. vs. CIT 49 ITR 137 (SC), wherein it was held by the Court that revenue can reopen a question obviously decided if fresh facts come to light or if earlier decision was rendered without taking into consideration material evidence etc. Similar proposition was laid down in the decision in the case of Broken Hill Proprietary Company vs. Broken Hill Municipal Council (192…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 22Section 23

…directed the AO re-compute income under the head ‘income from house property. In this connection, he also observed that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel does not apply as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 137 (SC). Thus, assessee was allowed a relief of Rs.20,14,960 by the CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR, who reiterated the stand of the AO. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the order of CIT(A). Page 4 of 16 9. We hav…

Official Liquidator

OLR/6/2015HC Karnataka10 Feb 2015

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

Section 27