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

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6785 & 6786/Del/2015 A.Yrs. : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Krishak Bharati Cooperative VS. ACIT, Circle 30(1), Ltd., New Delhi A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110 048 (PAN: AAAAK0203G) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik Choksi, CA & Sh. KVR Krishna, CA De…

Auto Finance Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4458/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)

…rary facts are brought on record, consistency has to be followed. On the 5 Auto Finance Enterprises issue of consistency, we are supported by the following judicial pronouncements:- 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…

Eih Limited., Kolkata vs. C.I.T Kol - III, Kolkata

In the result, the order passed by the Learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: G. Mallikarjun, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 38Section 38(2)

…nce the order passed by the Learned AO cannot be termed as erroneous. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions :- • Radhasoami Satsang vs CIT reported in (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) • CIT vs A.K.J. Security Printers reported in (2003) 264 ITR 276 (Del) 4.2.3. He argued that the taxability of the leased asset is required to be done as per the existing provisions of the IT Act read with the Circulars laid down in this regard more so when the CBDT has itself clarified vide Circular No.2 /2001 dated 9.2.2001 that the AS-19 will have no implication on the allowance of depreciation on assets u…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Laxmi Satyapal Jain, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4726/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

…by the aforesaid decision. Even otherwise, the judicial principle says that consistency has to be maintained. Our view find supports from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- 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…

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

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

…23 E-City Investment & Holdings Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.8382/Mum/11 principle of consistency the assessee is having a good case. Our view is fortified by the following decisions:- 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…

R. Kundan & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6143/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 5Section 6Section 6(1)(c)Section 9

…Fausta C. Cordeiro (2012) 24 taxman.com 193 (Mum.). So far as, the issue of consistency is concerned, it has to be followed, for which, we have fortified by the following decisions. 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…

Globus Infocom Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/447/2013HC Delhi13 Aug 2014
Section 115JSection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 80

…had also referred to their letter dated 17th August, 2009, filed before the Assessing Officer giving the basis for allocation of common expenditure. Reference was also made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. ARJ Security Printers, (2003) 264 ITR 276 (Delhi). Copy of the letter dated 2nd July, 2009 written by the appellant-assessee to the Assessing Officer has been placed on record. By letter dated 17th August, 2009, the appellant assessee had stated before the Assessing Officer that there were two separate and independent units, and that the common expenditure identified had not been b…

Commissioner Income Tax-I vs. Chd Developers Ltd

ITA/298/2013HC Delhi22 Jan 2014

Bench: Substitution By Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, Stood As Under:

Section 18Section 39Section 80Section 80I

…ITA 298/2013 Page 1 of 21 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 22nd January, 2014 + ITA 298/2013 COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan with Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Advocates versus CHD DEVELOPERS LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT: (OPEN COURT) The substantial question of law urged in this appeal by the revenue pertains…

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd

ITTA/447/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. NMDC Limited

ITTA/342/2013HC Telangana21 Aug 2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. Sri Macha Srinivas Goud

ITTA/344/2013HC Telangana21 Aug 2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. PVR Industries Limited

ITTA/343/2013HC Telangana21 Aug 2013

The Commissioner of Income tax IV vs. M/s L AND T Infocity Ltd

ITTA/336/2013HC Telangana20 Aug 2013