Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO

106 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1977#143 most cited

What is Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

486

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 1991 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO · Parashuram Pottery · Section 263 · erroneous order · revision power · substitution of Commissioner's judgment · finality of assessment · stale issues · judicial precedent · 106 ITR 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 142(1)Section 151Section 69CSection 68
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(31a)section 100section 76section 142(2c)section 153b(1)(b)section 150(1)section 153b(1)rectification under section 154section 144basection 33(4)section 206csection 158bc

Judgments citing Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Applitech Solution Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 247/AHD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR &
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 246/Ahd/2020 & CO No. 74/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Applitech Solution Limited, Circle 1(1)(1), Vs 503, Paritosh, Nr. Darpan Ahmedabad Academy, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013 PAN: AABCA 8332 P ITA No. 247/Ahd/2020 & CO No. 75/Ahd/2020 Ass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip France Sas, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 724/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144C(5)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…activated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induces repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. [see Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO 1977 CTR (SC) 32 : (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) at p. 10]. ............... From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an ITO acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the CIT simply because, according to him, the order should have been written m…

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat vs. M/S.Balar Navadiy Mfg.Co., Surat

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 349/SRT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2017 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- M/S Balar Navadiy Mfg. 3(3)(1), Room No.418, 4Th Co., Balar Building, Opp. Vs Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Panchratna Tower, Lambe Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Hanuman Road, Surat-395006 Pan : Aaffb 3054 J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…Chemicals Industries Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Patra Prakashan Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 14 (Del) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO GA-1 Ward-A Rajkot (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC). 4. The ld CIT(A) after considering the contents of the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee held that the first 9 M/s Balar Navadiy Mfg.Co. year of exemption under section 10B was assessment year 2010-11, wherein assessee made such claim and was allowed by assessing officer under scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). There…

The Thanthi Trust, Chennai vs. ADIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 2720/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ssessee relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of T.M.M.Sankaralinga Nadar & Bros. vs. CIT [(1929) 4 ITC 226 (Madras)] and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [(1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein, it was held that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity and that asse…

The Thanthi Trust, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1534/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ssessee relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of T.M.M.Sankaralinga Nadar & Bros. vs. CIT [(1929) 4 ITC 226 (Madras)] and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [(1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein, it was held that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity and that asse…

The Thanthi Trust, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1533/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ssessee relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of T.M.M.Sankaralinga Nadar & Bros. vs. CIT [(1929) 4 ITC 226 (Madras)] and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [(1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein, it was held that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity and that asse…

The Thanthi Trust, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1532/CHNY/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ssessee relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of T.M.M.Sankaralinga Nadar & Bros. vs. CIT [(1929) 4 ITC 226 (Madras)] and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [(1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein, it was held that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity and that asse…

Sanjay Amrutrao Satav (HUF), Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesses stands allowed

ITA 200/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.200/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Amrutrao Satav Vs. Ito, Ward- 12(4), Pune. (Huf), Amrut Palace Bungalow, Gat No.12 Bhavadi Road Wagholi, Near Bhairavnath Mandir, Taluka Haveli, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aayhs1085F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pooja Rander Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4, Pune [‘The Pr.Cit’] Dated 31.03.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja RanderFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 2Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54B

…es should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi- judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. [See : Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO[1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) at page 10]. ......” 11. Further, we find that the ld. Pr.CIT had not brought on record any material to show that the claim made for deduction u/s 54B is not allowable to the assessee. The power of revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised with a view to initiate a roving and fishing enquiry in the matters which we have already concluded. In this r…

Avantha Realty Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 360/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: ShriUpvan Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.KirtiSankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 36(1)

…giving the later decision, and if the Tribunal giving the earlier decision has taken into consideration all material evidence. Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC)in which it was held: "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 hut where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…case also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken." 30. Reference was also made to Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) and then it was held: "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…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ase also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken.” 30. Reference was also made to Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) and then it was held: “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 wa…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ase also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken.” 30. Reference was also made to Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) and then it was held: “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 wa…

M/S. Roquette India Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 116/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT/DR
Section 139Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 40

…and there would not be any point of finality in the I.T.A No. 116/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 13 M/s. Roquette India Pvt. Ltd. . vs. Pr. CIT legal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd Vs. ITO (1977)(106 ITR 1) that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings and the stale issues should not be reactivitated beyond a particular stage and the lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi- judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. 20. Further clause (a) of Explanation states that an order s…

M/S Fortune Metaliks Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…t must be desisted from………………………..” 13.3 We draw support from the above legal position as enunciated by the Apex Court. 14. Before parting it may not be out of context to also refer to the guiding principles in the cautious and the over arching multi- V ITO 106 ITR 1 (S.C) throw a beacon of light in the darkness where the rival claims/issues at stake for the parties are of consideration. The Hon'ble Judges opined, “……It has been said ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 35 of 35 that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the task of calcu…

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…. The policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1. In the instant case no addition was made in the hands of Smt. Kalpana VijaySarda though she has filed the return by specifying that she has purchased the property. At the same time it is not in dispute that the AO has taken a consistent stand that a sum of Rs. 16,51,000/- was paid for purchase of the said property but consciously took a view that…

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…. The policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1. In the instant case no addition was made in the hands of Smt. Kalpana VijaySarda though she has filed the return by specifying that she has purchased the property. At the same time it is not in dispute that the AO has taken a consistent stand that a sum of Rs. 16,51,000/- was paid for purchase of the said property but consciously took a view that…

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)

…hrough the different 2 1926 AC 155 : 1925 All ER Rep 56 (PC) 3 (1992) 1 SCC 659 : (1992) 193 ITR 321 4 1926 AC 155 : 1925 All ER Rep 56 (PC) 5 (1977) 1 SCC 408 : 1977 SCC (Tax) 179 : (1977) 106 ITR 1 6 (1992) 1 SCC 659 : (1992) 193 ITR 321 This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000607 ITA 142/2021 & connected matters Page 13 of 24 assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by…

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)

…hrough the different 2 1926 AC 155 : 1925 All ER Rep 56 (PC) 3 (1992) 1 SCC 659 : (1992) 193 ITR 321 4 1926 AC 155 : 1925 All ER Rep 56 (PC) 5 (1977) 1 SCC 408 : 1977 SCC (Tax) 179 : (1977) 106 ITR 1 6 (1992) 1 SCC 659 : (1992) 193 ITR 321 This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000608 ITA 142/2021 & connected matters Page 13 of 24 assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by…

Shergil Harjit, Ahmednagar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shergil Harjit, 6, Penton Road, Opp. Moti Buag, Officer’S Enclave, Ahmednagar Camp, Ahmednagar- 414002. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Evhps1971N बनाम / V/S. Pr. Cit-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Subhakant Sahu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Pune Dated 17.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record :- “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit – Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 As The Original Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Was Passed After Full Satisfaction Of The Ld. Assessing Officer. Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit, Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 Ex- Parte Inspite Of Duly Filed Submissions By The Assessee Before Time. Thus, The Order Passed Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee May Please Be Treated As Bad In Law & Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69

…ues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. [See : Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO[1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) at page 10]. ......” 5. In the instant case, in our considered view the Pr.CIT has initiated proceedings starting a fishing and roving enquiry in the matter without bringing on record any material or evidence demonstrating that he has acted in a reasonable manner. 6. That with regard to the chargeability of cash deposit for the purpose of taxa…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lepro Herbals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 111/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 145

…case also a defendant is bound by the judgment, although it may be true enough that subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken.” 30. Reference was also made to Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) and then it was held: 31 ITA.No.111/Del./2016 M/s. Lepro Herbals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. “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 throu…