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

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

…(2017) 81 taxmann.com 111/247 Taxman 361/394 ITR 449/201717 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 157/257 Taxman 211/409 ITR 545 (Bombay). in which this Court referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC) which followed the decision in Radhasoami Satsang (supra) accepted the rule of consistency. The following observations of the Supreme Court are required to be noted:- "15. The question in Radhasoami S…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…been reopened and a different and contradictory stand should not have been taken. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Cummins India Ltd. vs. ACIT (153 taxmann.com 223) and PCIT V/s Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (409 ITR 545). Further, the question of strictly interpreting deduction provisions of the Act does not apply in the present case. Once the deduction has been permitted by the Ld. AO himself in the subsequent assessment year, the allowability of the deduction has been established. Therefore, the submission of strict interpretation or liberal interpretation nee…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

…en reopened and a different and contradictory stand should not\nhave been taken. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nin the cases of Cummins India Ltd. vs. ACIT (153 taxmann.com 223) and PCIT V/s\nQuest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (409 ITR 545). Further, the question of strictly\ninterpreting deduction provisions of the Act does not apply in the present case.\nOnce the deduction has been permitted by the Ld. AO himself in the subsequent\n assessment year, the allowability of the deduction has been established. Therefore,\nthe submission of strict interpretation or liberal interpretatio…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. BHAGWANA RAM BISHNOI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, DCIT Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. SS Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-op. Hsg. Soc., 4th Marg, Parel, floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. PAN NO. ACOPB 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. SS Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4th f…

BHAGWANA RAM BISHNOI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, DCIT Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. SS Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-op. Hsg. Soc., 4th Marg, Parel, floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. PAN NO. ACOPB 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. SS Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4th f…

G R N FINSEC PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…nce the factual position remains the same, the AO cannot take a contrary stand and disallow interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., 409 ITR 545. 7. Regarding investment in shares of Teracom Ltd. amounting to Rs 39,62,500/-, it was submitted that the assessee has sufficient own funds available with it during the year under consideration, which is evident from the face of the Balance Sheet and as evident, it can be seen that the share capital, the reserves and surplus for the year under co…

G R N FINSEC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…nce the factual position remains the same, the AO cannot take a contrary stand and disallow interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., 409 ITR 545. 7. Regarding investment in shares of Teracom Ltd. amounting to Rs 39,62,500/-, it was submitted that the assessee has sufficient own funds available with it during the year under consideration, which is evident from the face of the Balance Sheet and as evident, it can be seen that the share capital, the reserves and surplus for the year under co…

ACIT 531, MUMBAI vs. TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…ge in the facts and circumstances. In our considered view, in such a case the principles of consistency shall be applied as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 157/257 Taxman 211/409 ITR 545 wherein it was held as under: "Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or atleast point…

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL-JOINT-DEPUTY-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…ge in the facts and circumstances. In our considered view, in such a case the principles of consistency shall be applied as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 157/257 Taxman 211/409 ITR 545 wherein it was held as under: "Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or atleast point…

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL-JOINT-DEPUTY-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-NCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…ge in the facts and circumstances. In our considered view, in such a case the principles of consistency shall be applied as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 157/257 Taxman 211/409 ITR 545 wherein it was held as under: "Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or atleast point…

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…ge in the facts and circumstances. In our considered view, in such a case the principles of consistency shall be applied as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 157/257 Taxman 211/409 ITR 545 wherein it was held as under: "Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or atleast point…

DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ERA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

…s submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the\ndecision in Union of India versus Satish Pannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221-\nSC and CIT Vs J.K. Charitable Trust (2008) 308 ITR 161 SC and PCIT Versus\nQuest Investment Advisor Private Limited (2018) 409 ITR 545 (Bombay).\n17. On the addition of ₹ 116.92 crore for issuance of CCD, the learned AR of the\nassessee submits that no equity shares were issued during the assessment\nyear 2013-14. The assessee has received Rs.116.92 Crore against issuing\nCCD. All the details and amount were duly provided, copies of which is also\nfiled herewith. All such eviden…

M/S LUBRIZOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

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

…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…