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 22Section 35ABBSection 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 utilitysection 12a(a)section 80ib(10)section 11(4a)section 13(2)far analysissection 80hsection 13(3)related party transactionsection 13(1)(c)

Judgments citing Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT

DCIT Cen Cir 23 Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Rasesh B.Kanakia, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3192/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 57

…or material change, hence, consistency needs to be followed in the income tax proceedings. The assessee relied on the following case laws to support its contentions:- “(i) Radha Swami Satsang v. ClT (1962) 193 ITR 321 (SC) (ii) ClT v. Darius Pandole (2011) 330 ITR 485 (Bom) (iii) DCIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman 616 (Gujarat) (iv) Consolidated Fibres & Chemicals Ltd. v. ClT - 273 ITR 353 (Cal.) (v) ClT, West Bengal-3 v. Rajan Prasad Moody - 115 ITR 516 ITA 3192-3196/Mum/14 10 (vi) ClT v. Sujani Textile Pvt. Ltd. - 151 ITR 653 (vii) ClT v. Amritaben Shah – 238 ITR 777 (De…

A.C.I.T. 4(2), Mumbai vs. Vimla Suresh Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4476/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tion justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh K. Jajoo & Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo in ‘CIT vs. Darius Pandole’ [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in ‘CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.). 9. In view of our above discussion of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is to be treated as an investor for the A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 also. We hold accordingly. The AO, therefore, is directed to treat the income from sale and purchase of shares as short term…

A.C.I.T. 4(2), Mumbai vs. Suresh K. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4475/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tion justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh K. Jajoo & Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo in ‘CIT vs. Darius Pandole’ [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in ‘CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.). 9. In view of our above discussion of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is to be treated as an investor for the A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 also. We hold accordingly. The AO, therefore, is directed to treat the income from sale and purchase of shares as short term…

Suresh K Jajoo, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4366/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tion justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh K. Jajoo & Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo in ‘CIT vs. Darius Pandole’ [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in ‘CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.). 9. In view of our above discussion of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is to be treated as an investor for the A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 also. We hold accordingly. The AO, therefore, is directed to treat the income from sale and purchase of shares as short term…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Suresh K Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5303/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tion justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh K. Jajoo & Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo in ‘CIT vs. Darius Pandole’ [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in ‘CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.). 9. In view of our above discussion of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is to be treated as an investor for the A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 also. We hold accordingly. The AO, therefore, is directed to treat the income from sale and purchase of shares as short term…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Vimla S. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5302/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tion justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh K. Jajoo & Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo in ‘CIT vs. Darius Pandole’ [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in ‘CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.). 9. In view of our above discussion of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is to be treated as an investor for the A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 also. We hold accordingly. The AO, therefore, is directed to treat the income from sale and purchase of shares as short term…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Suresh K Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 3053/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tion justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh K. Jajoo & Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo in ‘CIT vs. Darius Pandole’ [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in ‘CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.). 9. In view of our above discussion of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is to be treated as an investor for the A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 also. We hold accordingly. The AO, therefore, is directed to treat the income from sale and purchase of shares as short term…

DCIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Vimla S. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 2469/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tion justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh K. Jajoo & Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo in ‘CIT vs. Darius Pandole’ [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in ‘CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.). 9. In view of our above discussion of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is to be treated as an investor for the A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 also. We hold accordingly. The AO, therefore, is directed to treat the income from sale and purchase of shares as short term…

ACIT Cir-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Suresh K. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5442/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tion justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh K. Jajoo & Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo in ‘CIT vs. Darius Pandole’ [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in ‘CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.). 9. In view of our above discussion of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is to be treated as an investor for the A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 also. We hold accordingly. The AO, therefore, is directed to treat the income from sale and purchase of shares as short term…

ACIT Cir-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vimla S. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5441/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R
Section 143(3)

…tion justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 12 ITA Nos.5442/M/2008 & ITA Nos.5441/M/2008 & Others Shri Suresh K. Jajoo & Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo in ‘CIT vs. Darius Pandole’ [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in ‘CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom.). 9. In view of our above discussion of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is to be treated as an investor for the A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 also. We hold accordingly. The AO, therefore, is directed to treat the income from sale and purchase of shares as short term…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA - 1109 / 2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…the ITAT held that it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the said method for the AY in question at that stage. The ITAT referred to the decision in Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT v. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del). 21. It is submitted by Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, that the crucial fact that Mr. R.R. Modi, the Director of the Assessee, also controls PPL, whose shares he had purchased and sold, was not disclosed during the assessment proceedings for this year i.e. AY 1995- 96 and that this was a material fac…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishsht Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA - 1108 / 2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…the ITAT held that it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the said method for the AY in question at that stage. The ITAT referred to the decision in Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT v. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del). 21. It is submitted by Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, that the crucial fact that Mr. R.R. Modi, the Director of the Assessee, also controls PPL, whose shares he had purchased and sold, was not disclosed during the assessment proceedings for this year i.e. AY 1995- 96 and that this was a material fac…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA/1108/2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…the ITAT held that it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the said method for the AY in question at that stage. The ITAT referred to the decision in Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT v. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del). 21. It is submitted by Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, that the crucial fact that Mr. R.R. Modi, the Director of the Assessee, also controls PPL, whose shares he had purchased and sold, was not disclosed during the assessment proceedings for this year i.e. AY 1995- 96 and that this was a material fac…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd

ITA/1109/2010HC Delhi03 Dec 2015
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…the ITAT held that it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the said method for the AY in question at that stage. The ITAT referred to the decision in Radha Soami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT v. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del). 21. It is submitted by Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, that the crucial fact that Mr. R.R. Modi, the Director of the Assessee, also controls PPL, whose shares he had purchased and sold, was not disclosed during the assessment proceedings for this year i.e. AY 1995- 96 and that this was a material fac…

Johnson Matthey India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms but in the circumstances with

ITA/14/2013HC Delhi30 Oct 2015
Section 260A

…ad been in use by JMIPL for AY 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 and this was accepted by the tax authorities without challenge. Invoking the rule of consistency, as expostulated in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); CIT v. Ashok Mittal (2014) 360 ITR 12 (Del); CIT v. Mohan Meakin Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 377 (Del) and DIT v. India Habitat Centre [2011] 203 Taxman 510 (Del)Mr. Srivasatava submitted that no departure ought to have been made for the AY in question i.e. 2003-04. Submissions of counsel for the Revenue 26. Countering the above submissions, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Stand…

Johnson Matthey India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in the above terms but in the circumstances with

ITA-14/2013HC Delhi30 Oct 2015
Section 260A

…ad been in use by JMIPL for AY 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 and this was accepted by the tax authorities without challenge. Invoking the rule of consistency, as expostulated in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC); CIT v. Ashok Mittal (2014) 360 ITR 12 (Del); CIT v. Mohan Meakin Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 377 (Del) and DIT v. India Habitat Centre [2011] 203 Taxman 510 (Del)Mr. Srivasatava submitted that no departure ought to have been made for the AY in question i.e. 2003-04. Submissions of counsel for the Revenue 26. Countering the above submissions, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Stand…

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…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA-480/2005HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…2 & 3 were eligible for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act could not disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA-302/2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…2 & 3 were eligible for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act could not disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd

ITA-151/2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

…2 & 3 were eligible for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act could not disallow the same in subsequent years. In this regard, Mr Dua has cited the decisions in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Lagan Kala Upwan: (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del), Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT: (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paul Brothers: (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Modi Industries Limited: [2010] 327 ITR 570. 32. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 33. Before proceeding to address the questions that have been…