Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO

264 ITR 276High Court2003#1554 most cited

What is Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The Revenue cannot deny a deduction, such as under Sections 80-I or 80IC, in a current assessment year if it has consistently allowed the same deduction in prior years on identical facts and circumstances, unless there is a change in law or facts.

73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO · CIT v. A. K. J. Security Printers · 264 ITR 276 · Section 80-I · Section 80IC · Section 80IB · doctrine of consistency · Revenue cannot change stand · consistent allowance of deduction · identical facts · previous assessment years · eligibility for deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 11Section 12AASection 12AA(3)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(2)section 2(29ba)section 35acpreliminary expensesfirst proviso to section 147section 151(1)infrastructure facilitybeyond four yearsmaterial facts necessary for assessmentsection 80icsection 80ibkelvinator

Judgments citing Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO

UJJAWAL SAWERA SAMITI,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD (EXEMPTION), DELHI

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

ITA 5606/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20 Ujjawal Sawera Samiti, Vs. Ito Meerut -250001 Ward (Exemption) Pan No. Aaatu3244J Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 144B

…ion of facts will be liable to be set aside by this court.” Reliance also placed on the followings decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT , 193 ITR 321 (ii) Director of Income Tax (E) v. Escorts cardic Diseases 300 ITR 75 (iii) CIT v ARJ Securities Printers 264 ITR 276 6. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Ld. AR submitted that the registration of the trust never rejected. The assessee has filed the registration certificate (PB-page 22) before the authorities but there is no evidence on the file when this registration ce…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 510/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

…ITR 321 (SC) CIT v Excel Industries Ltd (2013)358 ITR 295(SC) DCIT vs Sulabh Intemational Social Service Organisation (2011) 57 DTR 0008 (Patna HC) 7.22 Further, on identical facts, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. A. K. J. Security Printers, (2003) 264 ITR 276 has held as follows:- "we are of the view that having accepted at least in three assessment years that the assessee's business activity fell within the ambit of S. 80-1 of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now tum around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present assessment years.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

…ITR 321 (SC) CIT v Excel Industries Ltd (2013)358 ITR 295(SC) DCIT vs Sulabh Intemational Social Service Organisation (2011) 57 DTR 0008 (Patna HC) 7.22 Further, on identical facts, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. A. K. J. Security Printers, (2003) 264 ITR 276 has held as follows:- "we are of the view that having accepted at least in three assessment years that the assessee's business activity fell within the ambit of S. 80-1 of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now tum around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present assessment years.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 508/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

…ITR 321 (SC) CIT v Excel Industries Ltd (2013)358 ITR 295(SC) DCIT vs Sulabh Intemational Social Service Organisation (2011) 57 DTR 0008 (Patna HC) 7.22 Further, on identical facts, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. A. K. J. Security Printers, (2003) 264 ITR 276 has held as follows:- "we are of the view that having accepted at least in three assessment years that the assessee's business activity fell within the ambit of S. 80-1 of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now tum around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present assessment years.…

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 489/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

…ITR 321 (SC) CIT v Excel Industries Ltd (2013)358 ITR 295(SC) DCIT vs Sulabh Intemational Social Service Organisation (2011) 57 DTR 0008 (Patna HC) 7.22 Further, on identical facts, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. A. K. J. Security Printers, (2003) 264 ITR 276 has held as follows:- "we are of the view that having accepted at least in three assessment years that the assessee's business activity fell within the ambit of S. 80-1 of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now tum around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present assessment years.…

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 486/IND/2024[2012-13 ]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

…ITR 321 (SC) CIT v Excel Industries Ltd (2013)358 ITR 295(SC) DCIT vs Sulabh Intemational Social Service Organisation (2011) 57 DTR 0008 (Patna HC) 7.22 Further, on identical facts, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. A. K. J. Security Printers, (2003) 264 ITR 276 has held as follows:- "we are of the view that having accepted at least in three assessment years that the assessee's business activity fell within the ambit of S. 80-1 of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now tum around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present assessment years.…

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 444/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

…ITR 321 (SC) CIT v Excel Industries Ltd (2013)358 ITR 295(SC) DCIT vs Sulabh Intemational Social Service Organisation (2011) 57 DTR 0008 (Patna HC) 7.22 Further, on identical facts, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. A. K. J. Security Printers, (2003) 264 ITR 276 has held as follows:- "we are of the view that having accepted at least in three assessment years that the assessee's business activity fell within the ambit of S. 80-1 of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now tum around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present assessment years.…

TAKENAKA INDIA PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-25(1), GURGAON

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

ITA 5581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Cit (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aadct6143P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Cit(A)”)-44, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Correctness Of The Order On Following Grounds:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/s. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., vs CIT (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. PAN-AADCT6143P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent by Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against…

DALMIA (BROS) PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 380/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Her As Additional Ground Of Appeal Reading As Under :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…l expediency cannot be disallowed in the year under consideration in view of the following decisions of the jurisdictional and other High Courts :- (i) Thirani Chemicals Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2006) 153 Taxman 45 (Delhi) (ii) CIT Vs. A.R.J. Security Printers (2003) 264 ITR 276 (Delhi) (iii) CIT Vs. Neo Polypack Ltd., 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) (iv) CIT Vs. Rajiv Grinding Mills (Delhi) 142 Taxman 567 (v) CIT Vs. Hinduatan Motors Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 619 (Cal.) (vi) ACIT Vs. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) Page 9 of 20 Dalmia (Bros.) Pvt. Ltd. Besides, the expenses having been treated as perquisites in th…

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2015/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/MsFor Respondent: Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 24Section 250

…accepted by the Assessing Officer in past assessment years, there is no valid reason for not accepting it in the impugned assessment year when the facts are identical.......... " • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. ARJ Securities Printers [2003] 264 ITR 276 following the decision in Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has observed that: "True that each assessment year being independent of the other, as a general rule, the principle of res judicata or estoppel by record, which applies to civil courts, does not applies to income tax proceedings but yet for the sake of consistency and for the purpose of finali…

MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 6346/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 6346/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Magnum International Trading Vs. DCIT, Company Pvt. Ltd, Circile-16(1), 48/12, Commercial Centre, Malcha New Delhi Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACM8173B Assessee by: Sh. Anil Bhalla, CA Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assesse…

ACIT CIRCLE-2(I), BHOPAL vs. MAPAAEX REMEDIES (P) LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 214/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year 2014-15 Acit, Circle -2(1) Mapaaex Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Hig-500, E-7, Arera Colony, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan No. Aaecm 2274 P Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.12.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 80Section 80I

…ITR 321 (SC) CIT v Excel Industries Ltd (2013)358 ITR 295(SC) DCIT vs Sulabh Intemational Social Service Organisation (2011) 57 DTR 0008 (Patna HC) 7.22 Further, on identical facts, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. A. K. J. Security Printers, (2003) 264 ITR 276 has held as follows:- "we are of the view that having accepted at least in three assessment years that the assessee's business activity fell within the ambit of S. 80-1 of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now tum around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present assessment years.…

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 45/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) (4) CIT v. Excel Industries: 358 ITR 295 (SC) (5) CIT V. Daimia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (7) CIT V. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276 (Del) (8) DIT v. Apparel Export Promotion Council 244 ITR 734 (Del) (9) CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del) (10) CIT v. Gilds'- Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) (11) Thirani Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT 153 Taxman 45 (Del) 12. Vesta Investmemnt and Trading Co.(P) Limited –vs.- CIT: 70 ITD 200(Chd.) 35 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 &…

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 418/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) (4) CIT v. Excel Industries: 358 ITR 295 (SC) (5) CIT V. Daimia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (7) CIT V. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276 (Del) (8) DIT v. Apparel Export Promotion Council 244 ITR 734 (Del) (9) CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del) (10) CIT v. Gilds'- Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) (11) Thirani Chemicals Ltd. v. DCIT 153 Taxman 45 (Del) 12. Vesta Investmemnt and Trading Co.(P) Limited –vs.- CIT: 70 ITD 200(Chd.) 35 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 &…

ACIT-8 (1) (1), MUMBAI vs. ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5754/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-8(1)(1) M/S Royal Western Turf Club Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Limited, Mahalaxmi Race Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Course, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s are brought on record by the Revenue, no U-turn is permissible. The learned Assessing Officer is bound by rule of consistency. The following cases support the case of the assessee:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) iv. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) v. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275ITR124) (AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vi. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) vii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B…

K.RAHEJA IT PARK (HYDERABAD) PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahushri Assessment Year: 2011-12 K. Raheja It Park ` Dy. Commissioner Of (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacck 1914G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Ms. Aarthi Sathe Revenue By Shri Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [123 ITR 669 (Guj)] d. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd. [254 CTR 593 (Bom)] e. lAC v. Hoechst India Ltd. [32 ITO 689 (Mum)] f. CIT v. Fateh Granite (P) Ltd. [314 ITR 32 (Bom)] g. CIT v. AR.J. Security Printers [264 ITR 276 (Del)] :- 15 -: K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Contention II: Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. PCIT has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the compliance to the conditions of approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry 21. At the outset, we would like to draw Your Honours' attention to the IPS 2002. A copy of…

DCIT 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ROYAL WESTERN INDUA TURF CLUB LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3237/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt Mamta Bansal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Salis Kapoor
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…are brought on record by the Revenue, no U-turn is permissible. The learned Assessing Officer is bound by rule of consistency. The following cases support the case of the assessee: - i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) ITA Nos. 3237 /Mum/2017 M/s. Royal Western India turf Club…

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…tsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). There is no material change in the facts in all the previous years and the view taken for previous years would continue on the principle of consistency the assessee finds support from the decision reported in 245 ITR 492, 264 ITR 276. It is stated that exemption had been granted to the assessee u/s 11 from the A.Y. 1991-92 consistently for twenty six years. There is absolutely no change of circumstances and there was no occasion for a different approach to be taken for the assessment year in question when the activities have continued uninterruptedly since the time of incepti…

AKZO NOBEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 621/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92

…es in the past. Accordingly, the said expenditure should be allowed following the principle of consistency. For that, he relied on the following judicial precedents: i) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321. ii) CIT Vs. A.K.J. Security Printers (2003) 264 ITR 276 and iii) CIT Vs. Neo Poly pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 12 Taxman 363. 15. On the other hand, the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the lower authorities and urged before the bench not to interfere in the order of the AO. 16. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts are not repeate…

DCIT CC 3(4) CE RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar/ ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vora Prasad Gude
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…he law the view taken in earlier years needs to be followed – 2.7.1 H.A. Shah & Co. V. CIT (30 ITR 618) (BOM) 2.7.2 Burmah Shell V. Chand (61 ITR 493)(BOM) 11 A.Y.2012-13 2.7.3 Radhasoami Satsang V CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) 2.7.4 CIT Vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276) (Del) 2.7.5 CIT V Godavari Corporation Ltd. (156 ITR 835)(MP) 2.7.6 CIT V Bhilai Engg. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (133 ITR 687)(MP) 2.7.7 Sardar Kehar Singh V. CIT (195 ITR 769) 2.8 . You will appreciate that in the case of Shambhu Investment it was nobody's case that in the earlier years similar income was charged to tax 'Income from Business'. The…

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4