How many judgments cite PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd.?

84 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. (409 ITR 545), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C, Section 263, Section 31(1), Section 32(1)(iii), Section 270A.

PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd.

409 ITR 545High Court2018#1364 most cited

What is PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot take a contrary or different stand on an issue in a subsequent assessment year if the factual position remains identical to previous years where a deduction was allowed.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors · 409 ITR 545 · rule of consistency · consistent view · Assessing Officer · contrary stand · identical factual position · deduction allowed · subsequent assessment year · section 143(3) · section 263

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C Section 263 Section 31(1)Section 32(1)(iii)Section 270A Section 32 Section 10B

Issues it is cited on

section 31(1)opening wdv transferor company comparable uncontrolled price method section 92c(1)depreciation on goodwill block of assets section 31 written down value slump sale revision under section 263 reference to tpo

Judgments citing PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd.

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee for both AYs are allowed

ITA 4630/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

…g identical. The said proposition is well supported by M/s. Lubrizol India Private Limited Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 8 the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v/s. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2018] 409 ITR 545 wherein it has been held that when a principle has been accepted by the Revenue in earlier years as well as in subsequent years then the Revenue is bound by it unless there is a ITA No. 4630 & 6099/Mum/2024 (AY 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/s. Lubrizol India Private Limited change in law or change in facts therein, which change has to be pointed out in t…

Kolhapur Zilla Krishi Karmachari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1763/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 249Section 270ASection 80P

…aldas K. Motwani Vs. Director General of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors., 323 ITR 223 (Bom); (iii) IIFL Samasta Finance Limited Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1054/Bang/2024 and (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P) Ltd., 409 ITR 545 (Bom), he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 6.1 He further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits. He brought to our attention that the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the quantum assessment completed on 15.03.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act w…

ACIT, Kolkata vs. Bandhan Konnagar, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1593/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

…years. 1. Copy of Order passed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs Salarpuria Simplex Dwelling LLP (455 ITR 712 dated 26.07.2022, 2. Copy of Order passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. 409 ITR 545 dated 28.06.2018, 3. Copy of Order passed by Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of DCIT vs J. Thomas & Co. P. Ltd. (167 ITD 572 dated 01.11.2017, 4. Copy of Order passed by Hon'ble Kolkata-ITAT in the case of EMC Projects P. Ltd. vs DCIT 209 ITD 411 dated 20.08.2024 & 5. Copy of order passed by Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. CMR Jna…

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R

Section 32

…& Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, & Anr.[2017] 7 SCC 421 14. We may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.com 157 (Bom), in which this Court referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 4 Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2006] 282 ITR 273(SC), which followed the decision I.T.A. No. 3944/Mum/2024 & I.T.A. No. 3945/Mum/2024 4 in Radhasoami Satsang Sabha (supra) accepted the rule of consistency. The following observations o…

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotel and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R

Section 32

Samir Networks LLP(Previously Known As Samir Stockholdings Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Samir Networks Llp The Acit (Converted From Samir Networks Vs Circle-4(1)91) Private Limited) Ahmedabad [Previously Known As Samil Stockholdings Pvt.Ltd.] 8, Abhishree Residency-2 B/H. Kantam Party Plot, Bopal Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaccs 6455 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

…the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year." 4.1 This view is also held by the Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT V/s. Quest Investment Advisors P. Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 157 (Bombay) /[2018] 409 ITR 545 (Bom) (copy enclosed). The Bombay High Court held as under "Held, dismissing the appeal, that for the earlier 10 years and 4 subsequent years the entire expenditure had been allowed against the business income and no expenditure was allocated to capital gains. Once the principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the Department w…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the A

ITA 391/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…, therefore on the basis of consisting principle the same were allowable. The issue of the assessee were also covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT –Vs.- Quest Investment Advisors (P) Ltd. reported on (2018) 409 ITR 545 (Bom). “Business expenditure-Allowability-Apportionment against professional income and capital gains vis-à-vis rule of consistency-Principle accepted by the Revenue for ten earlier years and for subsequent years to the asstt. Yrs. 2007-08 and 2008-09 was that the entire expenditure is to be allowed against business income and no expenditure is t…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 390/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…therefore on the basis of consistency principle the same were allowable. The issue of the assessee were also covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT –Vs.- Quest Investment Advisors (P) Ltd. reported on (2018) 409 ITR 545 (Bom). ―Business expenditure-Allowability-Apportionment against professional income and capital gains vis-à-vis rule of consistency-Principle accepted by the Revenue for ten earlier years and for subsequent years to the asstt. Yrs. 2007-08 and 2008-09 was that the entire expenditure is to be allowed against business income and no expenditure is t…

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…rder, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. Assessee is also relying upon the following case:- Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs. ITO (1977) 106 ITR 01 (SC) Pr. CIT vs Quest Investment Advisors Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 545 (Bom) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs UOI (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC) CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs Realest Builders & Services (2008) 307 ITR 202 (SC) DCIT Circle-33 vs India housing (2020) 113 Taxmann.com 535 (ITAT-Kolkata) Bodal Chemicals Ltd. vs Addl CIT (2019) 112 Taxmann.com 217 (ITAT-Ahmedabad) Travencore Textiles P.…

Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

…The above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 4.8 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd., 409 ITR 545 (Bombay)[28- 06-2018] has held as under : Quote, “5. Thus, the respondent carried the issue in further appeal to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal without going to the merits of the action of the Assessing Officer in allocating the expenses between the professional income and capital gains, proceeded to allow the appeal on the basi…

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 37(1)

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 159/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Vs 54, Jawaharlal Nehru Road Kolkata Rabindra Sadan Kolkata - 700071 [PAN: AAACE6366J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/R Revenue by : Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncemen…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1936/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA No. 2016/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2013-14) & DCIT Circle 8(2) (1), R. No. 624, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AACCA7777K ....... Appellant Vs. Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd. 8th floor, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/Ms. Jinal Jain, Ld. ARs Respondent by : Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08/11/2023 D…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)-Exemption, New Delhi vs. Hamdard Laboratories (India), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Vs. Hamdard Laboratories (India) Circle-1(1)-Exemption 2A/3, Hamdard Building, New Delhi. Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110 002 PAN AAATH0842H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri R.M. Mehta, CA Department by: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR Date of Hearing: 31.08.2023 Date of 27.09.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.03.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Ta…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Nela Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2966/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (Exemption) – 2(1) V. Neia Trust Room No. 608, 6Th Floor C/O. Ecgc Of India Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill 10Th Floor, Express Tower Mumbai - 400026 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Pan: Aaatn9999F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT (Exemption) – 2(1) v. NEIA Trust Room No. 608, 6th Floor C/o. ECGC of India MTNL Building, Cumballa Hill 10th Floor, Express Tower Mumbai - 400026 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 PAN: AAATN9999F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Aarti Visanji Department Represented by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date of Hearing : 01.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ―G‖ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 1935/MUM/2020& SA NO 135/M/2021 (Assessment Year 2018-19) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Grasim Industries Ltd. Room No. 902, 9th Floor, Old A-Wing, 2nd Floor, Aditya CGO Building Annex, Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Grasim Industries Ltd. Room No. 902, 9th Floor, Old Aditya Birla Centre, A-Wing, CGO Building Annex, 4th Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, M.…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

ITO-33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Vikram Baijnath Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…that position to be sustained by not challenging the order it would be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. (1992) 193 ITR 321 (329) RadhasoamiSatsgang vs. CIT ,Pr. CIT v M/s. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 409 ITR 545 (Bom) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India 282 ITR 273(SC) 36. Finding of earlier years on same facts relevant. Lalludas Children Trust vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 50 (Guj) 37. Without prejudice to above the assessee has adopted the recognised method of valuation. The rate of tax being the same the method adopted by the Assessee may to be dire…

Cricket Club of India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Cricket Club of India Vs. Commissioner of Income Pvt. Ltd., Tax-1 J.N. Tata Pavilion Mumbai Dinshaw Vachha Road Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AACCT6935C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue by Shri Sunil A. Umap Date of Hearing 18/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement 15/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.3282/Mum/2015 preferred by the order against the revision order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-…

M/S. Anand Projects Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai

ITA 813/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Anand Projects Limited V. Pr.Cit – 2 19/3, Sujata Building Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor Rani Sati Marg, Malad (East) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400097 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1389G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Shah Department By : Smt Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ShahFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the other, and the 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. In the case of PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd. [(2018) 419 ITR 545 (Bom.)], referring to this judgment and taking note of subsequent legal developments, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has, inter alia, observed as follows: 7. We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that the Revenue Authorities have consistently over the years i.e. for the 10 years prior to Assessment Years 2007-08 and…

Poona Club Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 892/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rmitted to take a different view. This position is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India, 282 ITR 273 (SC). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd., 409 ITR 545 (Bom.-HC) after extracting the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) made in para 20 held as follows :- “8. However, subsequently the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273 has after referring to the decision of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has observed as u…