Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO

264 ITR 276High Court2003#1547 most cited

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

An Assessing Officer is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot make a 'U-turn' in their assessment unless the revenue brings contrary facts on record.

73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO · rule of consistency · Assessing Officer · U-turn · contrary facts · assessment procedure

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

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6061/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…ed in the initial assessment year, the same can not be withdrawn in the subsequent years by placing reliance on the following decisions:- a) CIT Vs Paul Bros 216 ITR 548 (Bom) b) CIT Vs Fateh Granite (P) Ltd 314 ITR 32 (Bom) c) CIT Vs A.R.J. Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del) d) Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs CIT 123 ITR 669 (Guj) e) CIT Vs Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt Ltd 254 CR 593 (Bom) f) CIT Vs Tata Communication Internet Services Ltd. 251 CTR 290 (Del) g) IAC Vs Hoechst India Ltd 32 ITD 689(Mum) h) M.M.Patel & Sons Vs ITO 1ITD 82 (Nag) i) ITO Vs Smt Pushpa Devi Vadera 57 SOT 138 (Jodh…

M/S. Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 355/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…s Neo Polypack (P) Ltd: 245 ITR 492 9Del) • DIT (E) V. Apparel Export Promotion Council: 244 ITR 734 (Del) • CIT V. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala: 260 ITR 417 (P&H) • CIT V. Dalmial Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del) • CIT vs. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276(Del) • M/S Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital : 300 ITR 75 (Del) • Giesecke & Devrient India Private Limited. Vs DCIT (ITA No. 5400/Del/2010) • Lloyds TSB Global Services Private Limited (ITA No. 5928/Mum/2012) • ARJ Security Printers (264 ITR 276) 19 • Deutsche Asset Management (India) Private (ITA No. 7717/Mum/2010) • Hosley India Private Limit…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Samir Narian Bhojwani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 331/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit-Cc-3(4) Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-3 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.134/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 331/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit-Cc-24 & 26 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Family Hospital, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabpb9150H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6807/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.41/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 6153/Mum/2014) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…l position and the 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) 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…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Uthan Educational Society, Faridabad

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 2657/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaacit Uthan Educational Circle-Ii Society, Faridabad 5E/1A B.P. N.I.T Vs. Faridabad Pan : Aaatu1248C Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…t 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.” 5.5 Following the above decisions, The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has in A.R.J. Security Printers' case reported in 264 ITR 276 (Del) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Neo Poly Pack P. Ltd. reported in 245 ITR 492 (Del), held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail even during the subsequent years…

Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios Sa, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2391/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.A. and Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R

…sessee-company relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhaswamy Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321, Gendamal Hazarilal 263 ITR 679 (M.P.) and Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court’s Judgment in the case of CIT vs. ARJ Security Printers 264 ITR 276 (Del.). 5. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of the assessee-company and noted that as per provisions of FEMA, the Project Office located in India does not come under the list of eligible borrowers, therefore, the Project Office is not eligible for external commercial borrowings. Therefore, assessee-company cannot take any…

Satypal Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3965/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…consistency, it can be said that in the absence of contrary facts/material, consistency has to be maintained, for which the ratio laid down in the following cases supports our view. 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. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Satypal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3831/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…consistency, it can be said that in the absence of contrary facts/material, consistency has to be maintained, for which the ratio laid down in the following cases supports our view. 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. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

M/S. Parbhat Heavy Forge Pvt. Ltd., Punjab vs. Addl. CIT, Karnal

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

ITA 5288/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh.O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Prabhat Heavy Forge Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit, Ltd., Karnal Range, Karnal V. Gupta & Associates, Cas, D-15, Calibre Market, Rajpur Punjab Pan :Aaccp6521A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…the rule of consistency, the Ld. counsel relied on following judicial precedents: " 385 ITR 295, CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (Supreme court) 11 " 193 ITR 321-323 Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (Supreme Court) also followed by P&H High Court in 278 ITR 262. " 264 ITR 276, CIT Vs. ARG Securities Printers (Jurisdictional Delhi High Court). " 300 ITR 75 (Delhi), Director of Income Tax (E) Escorts Cardiac Diseases. 5.3 On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that interest paid to the persons specified under section 40A(2)(b) is being excessive as compared to the interest paid on money borrowed by the assessee and ther…

Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Kangra vs. DCIT (E), C-2, Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 10

…ing assessment year 2006-07 decided earlier. Though the principle of res-judicata does not apply to the income tax proceedings but the rule of consistence does apply to the income tax proceedings. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ARJ Securities Printer 264 ITR 276 held that “For the sake of consistency and finality of litigation, earlier decision on same question should not be reopened unless new facts came to the knowledge”. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT 193 ITR 321 and Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Godavari Corporation Ltd. 156 ITR 835 held that, “Rule…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd, Rajam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 458/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321). The authorised representative also contended that the principle of consistency should be followed by the AO and relied on the following decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s.…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited, Rajam vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321). The authorised representative also contended that the principle of consistency should be followed by the AO and relied on the following decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s.…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rajam vs. The ITO, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 349/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321). The authorised representative also contended that the principle of consistency should be followed by the AO and relied on the following decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s.…

The DCIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Mills Pvt Ltd, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 340/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321). The authorised representative also contended that the principle of consistency should be followed by the AO and relied on the following decisions: (i) Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC) CIT vs. ARJ Securities Printes (264 ITR 276)(Del (ii) CIT V. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd (245 ITR 492) (Del) (iii) Burmah Shell v. Chand (61 ITR 493) (Born); (iv) Royal Business Centre Pvt Ltd v ITO (39 BCAJ 24) (Born); (v) CIT v Godavari (156 ITR 835) (MP); (vi) Namozil v CIT (174 ITR 58) (Mad); and (vii) CIT v Neo poly pack (P) Ltd. ( 245 ITR 492) (Del) (viii) ITA Nos. 458 & 404/VIZ/2017 (M/s.…

M/S Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 1/9-B, Jindal House, Circle-5(2), बनाम/ Asaf Ali Road, C.R. Building, Vs. Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 ("नधा%&रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacc2744C

Section 14A

…unless and until contrary material/facts are brought on record. On the issue of consistency, we are supported by following decisions:- 5 ITA No. 4439/Del./2015 Cargo Motors Pvt Ltd. 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. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi Press Samachar Patra Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1433/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ITO, Ward 10 (1) , New Delhi Vs Delhi Pres samachar Patra Private Limited ITA NO 1433 , 1061/ Del/2013 & 5001 & 6515/ Del/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1061/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No.6515/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITO, Vs. Delhi Press Samachar Patra Pvt. Ltd, Ward-10(1), Room No. 199, C/o. Shri Harvinder Singh Sahota, CR Building, New Delhi KG, 3/6, Vikaspuri, New Delhi PAN:AAACD2084L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Anshu…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5570/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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) viii Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix.…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5569/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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) viii Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix.…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gtl Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

…um/2010 the absence of contrary facts, 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. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix…

Mansarover Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 4193/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M/S Mansarover Builders (Pvt) Ltd. Dcit/Acit, 48/12, Commercial Centre, Circle-6(1), Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri Room No. 413, Vs. New Delhi- 110021 C. R. Building, New Delhi Pan : Aaacm6591R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Bhalla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…sallowances have been observed to have been made by Ld. AO. Ld. AO has also not disputed the consistent method of allocation of consultancy in the preceeding assessment years. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs ARJ securities Printers, reported in 264 ITR 276 has held as under: “Although each assessment year being independent of the other, the principle of res judicata or estoppels by record which applies to Civil Courts, does not apply to Income Tax proceedings, yet for the sake of consistency and for the purpose of finality in all litigations, including litigation arising out of fiscal states, earli…

DCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Janki Newsprint Ltd., Meerut

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

ITA 4938/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: 1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld

…ugh the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year". 264 ITR 276, CIT VS. ARC Securities Printers (Delhi High Court) relevant portion from page 279 is reproduced below: "In the aforesaid factual background, we fail to appreciate as to how, when there is no change in the business of the assessee, relief under section 80-1 of the Act can be denied to them in respect of some of the assessment years when similar r…