Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal (249 ITR 2191)

Dy CIT 10 (3)91), Mumbai vs. M/S Nouveau Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY

ITA 8047/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. 1St Room No.217/212, Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 701, Natraj, M. V. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Junction, Western Express 400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7039/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) बिधम/ Dcit-10(3)(1) M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Road Churchgate, Junction, Western Express Mumbai-400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5280G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Of The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 24.10.2019 For A.Y.2013-14; & Order Dated 07.09.2018 For Ay.2014-15. 2. First We Deal With Appeal Pertaining To Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Reversing The Action Of The Ao Capitalizing Rs.2,47,96,353/- Which

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma

…appeal on this issue is permissible. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 6. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 2191, Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law, and observed that, "it is not open to re…

DCIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY

ITA 7039/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 8047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. 1St Room No.217/212, Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 701, Natraj, M. V. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Junction, Western Express 400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7039/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) बिधम/ Dcit-10(3)(1) M/S. Nouveau Developers Pvt. Room No.212, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. 702, Natraj, M. V. Road, Road Churchgate, Junction, Western Express Mumbai-400020. Highway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5280G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Of The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-17, Mumbai Dated 24.10.2019 For A.Y.2013-14; & Order Dated 07.09.2018 For Ay.2014-15. 2. First We Deal With Appeal Pertaining To Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Ground No. 1 Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Reversing The Action Of The Ao Capitalizing Rs.2,47,96,353/- Which

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma

…appeal on this issue is permissible. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 6. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 2191, Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law, and observed that, "it is not open to re…

ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Niche Health Options P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1373/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…appeal on this issue is permissible. {{[ 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 6. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 2191, Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law, and observed that, "it is not open to re…

Commissioner of Gst and Central Excise vs. M/S Citibank N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 35L(1)(b)Section 64(3)Section 65Section 65(10)Section 65(105)Section 65(12)Section 65(7)Section 83

…d upon by the respondent. 76. In Union of India and others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and another 9, noticing that the Revenue had accepted the Judgment of the High Court, it was found that it was not open to the Revenue except the 9 (2001) 10 SCC 231 86 assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees, without just cause. 77. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd. 10, undoubtedly, in paragraph-9, the Court held as follows: “9. Apart from the question of interpretation of the notification, the appe…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Core Health Care Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals, as also the cross objections, are dismissed

ITA 1800/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…nted by the coordinate bench, on this particular aspect, however reached finality because of the Assessing Officer not challenging the Tribunal findings on that aspect before Hon’ble Court above. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 2191, Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the ITA No.: 1409 and 1800/Ahd/15; CO No. 68/Ahd/17 Assessment year: 2003-04 Page 3 of 5 identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the s…

Core Health Care Ltd., (Liquidated Company), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., .Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals, as also the cross objections, are dismissed

ITA 1409/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…nted by the coordinate bench, on this particular aspect, however reached finality because of the Assessing Officer not challenging the Tribunal findings on that aspect before Hon’ble Court above. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 2191, Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the ITA No.: 1409 and 1800/Ahd/15; CO No. 68/Ahd/17 Assessment year: 2003-04 Page 3 of 5 identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the s…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax--6 vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd

ITA/692/2016HC Delhi26 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 260ASection 68

…by it. ITA 692/2016 Page 7 of 18 16. Relying on the decision in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal (2001) 10 SCC 231, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narendra Doshi (2004) 2 SCC 81, Berger Paints India Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (2004) 12 SCC 42 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivsagar Estate (2004) 9 SCC 420 Mr Goel submitted that once the Revenue did not challenge the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court and accepted it…

T.K. Ginarajan vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Cochin

C.A. No.-005210-005216 - 2002Supreme Court21 Jul 2008

Bench: Us. The Order, Of Reference, Inter-Alia, Reads As Follows:

…whether revenue can be precluded from defending itself by relying upon the contrary decision. We make it clear that we are not doubting the correctness of the view taken by this Court in the cases of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal (2001)10 SCC 231, CIT v. Narendra Doshi (2004) 2 SCC 801 and CIT v. Shivsagar Estate (2004) 9 SCC 420 to the effect that if the revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court and accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it is not open to the Revenue to challenge its correctness in the case of other assesse…

Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal

Also reported as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal