Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT

244 ITR 734High Court2000#579 most cited

What is Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT authority for?

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

168

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT · 244 ITR 734 · rule of consistency · revenue divergent position · subsequent assessment year · income tax assessment · section 143(3) · assessment procedure · judicial precedent

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 340112 Taxmann 363

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 22 Section 35ABB Section 142(1)Section 255(4)Section 28(i)Section 10(B)(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 13(2)(c)section 144(b)advancement of general public utility section 12a(a)section 80ib(10)section 11(4a)section 13(2)far analysis section 80h section 13(3)related party transaction section 13(1)(c)

Judgments citing Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4294/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 41 principle of consistency which has been laid down in catena of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescrib…

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4293/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 41 principle of consistency which has been laid down in catena of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescrib…

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2863/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 41 principle of consistency which has been laid down in catena of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescrib…

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2862/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 41 principle of consistency which has been laid down in catena of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescrib…

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2860/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 41 principle of consistency which has been laid down in catena of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescrib…

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2859/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 41 principle of consistency which has been laid down in catena of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescrib…

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 10/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 41 principle of consistency which has been laid down in catena of decisions the additions need to be deleted. Principle of Consistency has been upheld in the foll cases; CIT v Darius pandole (330 ITR 485 Bom), Gopal Purohit V JCIT (2009 122 TTJ Mum 87), Radhasaomi Satsang V CIT ( 193 ITR 321), CIT V Neopolypack P Ltd (245 ITR 492). 18. Rule 108 provides for determination of arms length price u/s 92C by any of the methods prescribed therein One of the methods prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 10B is CUP method & sub rule (1) of rule 10B prescrib…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 1 of 99 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA No.2384 and 3475/Mum/2019 and 1241/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Ambuja Cement Limited .…………………………Appellant (formerly known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) Elegant Business Park, MIDC Cross Road B, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 059 [PAN: AAACG0569P] Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai ……………...………

Cgi Information Systems vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeals are allowed

ITA/608/2016HC Karnataka31 Oct 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

…- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2016 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 609 OF 2016 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2017 IN I.T.A NO.608 OF 2016 BETWEEN : CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED PRESENTLY ELECTRONIC CITY TOWER II NO.95/1 AND 95/2 ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE I (WEST), BANGALORE-560 100 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR MS. BABALUSHA ESTHER ALEXA…

Cgi Information Systems vs. The Income Tax Officer

Appeals are allowed

ITA/609/2016HC Karnataka31 Oct 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

…- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2016 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 609 OF 2016 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2017 IN I.T.A NO.608 OF 2016 BETWEEN : CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED PRESENTLY ELECTRONIC CITY TOWER II NO.95/1 AND 95/2 ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE I (WEST), BANGALORE-560 100 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR MS. BABALUSHA ESTHER ALEXA…

Cgi Information Systems vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Appeals are allowed

ITA/686/2017HC Karnataka31 Oct 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

…- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2016 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 609 OF 2016 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2017 IN I.T.A NO.608 OF 2016 BETWEEN : CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED PRESENTLY ELECTRONIC CITY TOWER II NO.95/1 AND 95/2 ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE I (WEST), BANGALORE-560 100 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR MS. BABALUSHA ESTHER ALEXA…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - (1), Panaji vs. M/S Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Panaji

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 453/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : PANAJI BENCH: GOA BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7th Floor, EDC House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (PAN: BLRGO3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Goa State Infrastructure Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain, AR De…

Goa State Infrastructure Devlopment Corporation Limited., Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 449/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : PANAJI BENCH: GOA BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7th Floor, EDC House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (PAN: BLRGO3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Goa State Infrastructure Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain, AR De…

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7615/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT]–DR

…ung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (ITA. 01 of 2012); 26 Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); 27 CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC); 28 CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492; 29 CIT Vs. Arthur Anderson and Co. (2009) 318 ITR 229. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the issue involved in the present case is that whether revenue earned on account of sale to Indian Customers is attributable to India for taxation or not? AO in this case attributed 50% of the sale revenue towards activities executed by Itochu India Pvt. Ltd. as permanent establishment and assumed profit rate of 10%.…

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 360/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 360/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) A N D I.T.A. No. 7615/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Itochu Corporation, Acit, 5–1, Kita-Aoyama, Vs. (International Taxation) 2–Chome, Minato-Ku Circle 2(1)(1), Tokyo 107-8077, Japan. New Delhi. Pan: Aabci5567L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT]–DR

…ung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT (ITA. 01 of 2012); 26 Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); 27 CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC); 28 CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492; 29 CIT Vs. Arthur Anderson and Co. (2009) 318 ITR 229. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the issue involved in the present case is that whether revenue earned on account of sale to Indian Customers is attributable to India for taxation or not? AO in this case attributed 50% of the sale revenue towards activities executed by Itochu India Pvt. Ltd. as permanent establishment and assumed profit rate of 10%.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Cache Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 124/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, D.R

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH : Hyderabad (Through Video Conference) Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member ITA No.124/Hyd./2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy.CIT, Circle 1(2) vs. M/s Cache Properties Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN: AABCC8341C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Department: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, D.R For Asessee : Sh Murali Mohana Rao, A.R Date of Hearing : 18/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07/10/2021 O R D E R PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM This is Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 against the order of CIT(Appeals)-1, H…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

…ia Dadri Cement Lid. [1970] 77 ITR 410 (P&H) b) Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC) ] c) DCIT V/s United Vanaspati Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned AO's impugned action to disallow the payments made to interested persons was not supported by the provisions of the Act, we w…

M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

…ia Dadri Cement Lid. [1970] 77 ITR 410 (P&H) b) Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC) ] c) DCIT V/s United Vanaspati Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned AO's impugned action to disallow the payments made to interested persons was not supported by the provisions of the Act, we w…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

…ia Dadri Cement Lid. [1970] 77 ITR 410 (P&H) b) Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC) ] c) DCIT V/s United Vanaspati Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned AO's impugned action to disallow the payments made to interested persons was not supported by the provisions of the Act, we w…

DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Manav Mangal Society, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR

…ia Dadri Cement Lid. [1970] 77 ITR 410 (P&H) b) Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC) ] c) DCIT V/s United Vanaspati Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 124 (AT)(TM) d) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT[1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC e) CIT V/s Arthus Andersen & Co. [2009] 318 ITR 229 (Bom) f) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Leader Valves Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 2. Intervention into matters of commercial expediency by the Learned A.O. 2.1 Notwithstanding the Appellant's contention that the Learned AO's impugned action to disallow the payments made to interested persons was not supported by the provisions of the Act, we w…