Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT

193 ITR 321Supreme Court of India1992#16 most cited

What is Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT authority for?

The principle of consistency dictates that if the facts and circumstances remain unchanged across assessment years, the revenue cannot adopt a divergent or adverse position on an issue that was previously allowed after due deliberation.

1,689

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT · 193 ITR 321 · rule of consistency · principle of consistency · unchanged facts · assessment procedure · Section 143(3) · Section 263 · depreciation allowance · revenue expenditure

Also reported as

60 Taxmann 24860 Taxmann.com 248100 CTR 267

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 147Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

rule of consistencymercantile system of accountingprofits and gains of business or professionarm's length pricetransfer pricing adjustmentassociated enterprisesassociated enterpriserevenue expendituresection 32section 92cinternational transactionsection 37(1)

Judgments citing Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…case as well as by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It was contended that interest on securities becomes taxable only when it becomes due and enforceable. It was further submitted that consistency must be maintained as held in Radhasoami Satsang 193 ITR 321. The Ld.AR has relied on assessee’s own case decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee vide order dated: • 11 October 2024 for AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08. • 06 June 2023 for AY 2009-10. I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 • 22 March 2022 for the AY 2005-06. • 30 September 2021 for AY 2003-04. • 12 July 2021 for the AY 2001-02 and…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…case as well as by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It was contended that interest on securities becomes taxable only when it becomes due and enforceable. It was further submitted that consistency must be maintained as held in Radhasoami Satsang 193 ITR 321. The Ld.AR has relied on assessee’s own case decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee vide order dated: • 11 October 2024 for AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08. • 06 June 2023 for AY 2009-10. I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 • 22 March 2022 for the AY 2005-06. • 30 September 2021 for AY 2003-04. • 12 July 2021 for the AY 2001-02 and…

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TRANSWORLD FURTICHEM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2696/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram a/w Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, SR. DR
Section 250Section 32

…the second year, we are of the considered view that the Revenue is not justified in disallowing the claim of depreciation on Trademark in the year under consideration. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision in Radhaswami Satsang vs CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a fundamental aspect permeating through 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…

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TRANSWORLD FURTICHEM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2695/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram a/w Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, SR. DR
Section 250Section 32

…the second year, we are of the considered view that the Revenue is not justified in disallowing the claim of depreciation on Trademark in the year under consideration. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision in Radhaswami Satsang vs CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a fundamental aspect permeating through 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…

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TRANSWORLD FURTICHEM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2694/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram a/w Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, SR. DR
Section 250Section 32

…the second year, we are of the considered view that the Revenue is not justified in disallowing the claim of depreciation on Trademark in the year under consideration. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision in Radhaswami Satsang vs CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a fundamental aspect permeating through 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…

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TRANSWORLD FURTICHEM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2693/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram a/w Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, SR. DR
Section 250Section 32

…the second year, we are of the considered view that the Revenue is not justified in disallowing the claim of depreciation on Trademark in the year under consideration. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision in Radhaswami Satsang vs CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a fundamental aspect permeating through 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…

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4400/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 80GSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCONTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 PAN No.AABCS1887M Appellant Respondent IT(TP) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. DCIT Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 PAN No.AABCS18…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. A P TRADING CO, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4286/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pawan Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…judicated in favor of the assessee by this Tribunal in AY 2018-19. While the principle of res judicata does A P Trading Co not strictly apply to tax proceedings, the rule of consistency—as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) mandates that where a fundamental aspect underpining the assessment has been decided as a matter of fact in one year, it should not be departed from in subsequent years unless a material change in circumstances is evidenced. 9.2 The Ld. Departmental Representative mainly submitted that facts in the year under consideration are different fro…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 7293/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…case (supra). 13. It is also pertinent to mention here that for Assessment Year 2009-10 onwards the Assessing Officer has permitted the deduction of ESOP expenses and in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321, the revenue cannot be permitted to take a different stand with regard to the Assessment Year in question. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is her…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 7292/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…case (supra). 13. It is also pertinent to mention here that for Assessment Year 2009-10 onwards the Assessing Officer has permitted the deduction of ESOP expenses and in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321, the revenue cannot be permitted to take a different stand with regard to the Assessment Year in question. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is her…

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 6723/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…case (supra). 13. It is also pertinent to mention here that for Assessment Year 2009-10 onwards the Assessing Officer has permitted the deduction of ESOP expenses and in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321, the revenue cannot be permitted to take a different stand with regard to the Assessment Year in question. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is her…

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 6721/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…case (supra). 13. It is also pertinent to mention here that for Assessment Year 2009-10 onwards the Assessing Officer has permitted the deduction of ESOP expenses and in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321, the revenue cannot be permitted to take a different stand with regard to the Assessment Year in question. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is her…

ACIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018–

ITA 6715/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 7292/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ita No. 6721/Mum/2025 Ita No. 7293/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(3)(1), Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400020 Pan : Aabct2577P V/S Thyrocare Technologies Limited, ……………… Respondent D/37, 1 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…case (supra). 13. It is also pertinent to mention here that for Assessment Year 2009-10 onwards the Assessing Officer has permitted the deduction of ESOP expenses and in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, [1992] 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321, the revenue cannot be permitted to take a different stand with regard to the Assessment Year in question. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is her…

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2166/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 14ASection 80Section 92C

…support of this contention: - a. CIT v. GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. [2020-TII-50-HC-KAR- TP] b. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited [TS-176-SC-2017] 12 c. CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd [358 ITR 295 SC (2013)] d. Radha Swami Satsang vs. CIT [193 ITR 321] 15. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. Undisputedly, the issue is covered by the orders of coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for preceding AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 where on similar facts, the addition made on transfer of steam was deleted. The limited issue is that in the year under consideration, th…

H.L. MALHOTRA AMD COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3405/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 24

…ng through the different assessment years is accepted in one way or the other, a different view in the matter is not warranted unless there being any material change in facts. This view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC). Even otherwise, this issue is covered by various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court starting from Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT – 51 ITR 353 (SC) and last decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Dadarkar & Associations Vs. ACIT 394 ITR 592. In view of the above factual position, and also on the principle of consistency, we are of the vi…

OMPRAKASH RAMSURAT YADAV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4870/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2015-16 Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav Vs. Dcit-Circle 24(1) 1403-A, Rna Heights, Mumbai J.V.L.R. Road (Respondent) Andheri East Mumbai- 400 093 Pan : Aalpy7169F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K Chhatrapati Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 21(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC ”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : A.Y. : 2015-16 Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav Vs. DCIT-Circle 24(1) 1403-A, RNA Heights, Mumbai J.V.L.R. Road (Respondent) Andheri East Mumbai- 400 093 PAN : AALPY7169F (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Aamod Prabhudesai Respondent by : Shri Kiran K Chhatrapati Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 17/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04/03/2026 O R D E R PER JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT : By this appeal, the appellant assessee is challenging the order dated 26…

PRATIBHA SINGH,SHIMLA vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CIRCLE SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court. The Hon’Ble High Court Upheld The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Holding That The Assessing Officer Possessed

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aman Singhi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…e addition has been made for Assessment year 2010-2011 and as per the law, the fiscal loss every years is independent year but the principles of constructive res-judicata as propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT reported as 193 ITR 321 Page Supreme Court have to be taken cognizance of the case, if the same is taken cognizance of natural influence of the same is that the assessment so made in the hands of the assessee in her individual capacity is per-se illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of the law. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the addition may kindly be…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. BAU DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 6014/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

…o deviation from facts or law has occurred in the current year that would justify a change in the accepted accounting treatment, It is a settled position in law, reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions including Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [193 ITR 321 (SC)), that where a consistent method is accepted, the Department is not permitted to adopt a contrary stand in a subsequent year without change in facts or law. 6.3 The AO's sole basis for invoking revenue recognition was the receipt of a Part Occupancy Certificate (POC) dated 22.11.2017, However, a bare perusal of the document reveals that it w…

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7487/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…also prudent to note that the same transactions were accepted by the ld. TPO upto A.Y.2012-13 in the case of the assessee. Hence, even going by the rule of consistency as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang reported in 193 ITR 321, there is no need for the ld. TPO to take a divergent stand when there is no change in the facts and circumstances during the year with that of earlier years. Hence, we direct the ld. TPO to delete the adjustment made in respect of guarantee fees in the sum of Rs.10,94,55,035/-. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowe…

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 429/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

…son for us to take a different view unless there Page 6 of 25 Surendranagar Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer are very convincing reasons, none of which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 29. In Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321/60Taxman 248 (SC) this Court did not think it appropriate to allow the reconsideration of an issue for a subsequent assessment year if the same"fundamental aspect" permeates in different assessment years. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court referred to an interesting passage from Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation, 1926 AC 155 (PC) where…

Showing 1–20 of 1,689 · Page 1 of 85

...