How many judgments cite Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal?

89 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal (249 ITR 219), spanning 2002 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 10B(2), Section 10TA, Section 139, Section 139(1).

Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal

249 ITR 219Supreme Court of India2001#1293 most cited

What is Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal authority for?

The Department cannot take a different view in a subsequent assessment year if the facts and circumstances remain the same and the finding in an earlier year's assessment was not challenged. This establishes the rule of consistency in income tax proceedings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal · Kumudini N. Dalal · rule of consistency · consistency of view · assessment year · same facts · no challenge by department · income tax proceedings · 143(3) · 139 · transfer pricing consistency

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 10B(2)Section 10TA Section 139 Section 139(1)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)

Issues it is cited on

profit split method resale price method section 92(1)right to receive transactional net margin method section 92b cup method arms length price most appropriate method section 92ca(3)section 48 tnmm

Judgments citing Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal

ALLRUI SRINIVAS RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1923/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1923/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Allrui Srinivas Raju, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-12(1), Pan: Ahepr6968H Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri K C Devdas, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 12/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Allrui Srinivas Raju, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 17/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. Allrui Srinivas Raju Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Rounds Of Appeal:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2

…on account of the same JDA, the Revenue cannot take a different stand in the case of the present assessee. In support of his contention, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal 249 ITR 219, wherein it has been held that it is not open to the Revenue to accept the judgment in the case of one assessee and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee when the facts are identical. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made by the Ld. AO in the hands of the assessee is liable to be deleted. 6. Per contra, the…

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…lal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263\nITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi),\nDhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT v. Shiv Sagar\nEstate [2002] 257 ITR 59 (SC) and Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah\n[2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC). In our opinion, there was no good and justifiable\ncause to take a different view and conclude in the assessment proceedings\nfor the year under consideration that the AY 1996-97 was the first year\nwhen the assessee started providing telecommunication services, without\nthere being any change in the factual position and when the earlier de…

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

FUTURE FIRST INFO SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. ,DELHI vs. AO CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 672/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92D

…acing reliance on the following decisions, prayed for upholding the rule of consistency:  Radhasoami Satsang (193 ITR 321),  Excel Industries Limited 358 ITR 295,  Berger Paints India Ltd. (266 ITR 99),  Union of India Vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Other (249 ITR 219),  Brintons Carpets Asia P Ltd. (ITA No.1296/PN/10)  Management Structure & Systems (2010) 41 DTR 426)  Bengal Tiger Line Pte. Ltd. [2020] 121 taxmann.com 165 (Chennai Trib.) 4.2 The Ld. AR further contended that the services provided by the appellant assessee were not comparable to an investment/trading services provider for the simple reaso…

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

…on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321, the decision of M.P. High Court in the case of Godavari Corporation, 156 ITR 835, decision of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah, 249 ITR 221 and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., 338 ITR 435. Therefore, identical issue considered and decided in earlier years in favour of the assessee by the AO as well as by the Tribunal in various years should have been followed by the authorities below on the identical issue. It is also not in dispute that the end product,…

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 379/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

…ing consistent to the finding of the Tribunal in the said case, it is not open to the Revenue to challenge the very same issue in other assessee as per the explicit principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in UOI -vs.- Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) where the Court held that it 121 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT is not open to the Revenue to accept the judgement in the case of one assessee and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessee without just cause. Said view is also upheld in Berger Paints India Ltd. -vs.- CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) & CIT vs Narendra Doshi (2002)…

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

In the result, the ground No

ITA 3096/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 92C

…disputing such addition by filing further appeal\ntherefore; appeal of revenue on this ground of appeal may be dismissed. To\nsupport his 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.1…

RITA GOEL,BANGLORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1230/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Hema Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 55A

…under: “10. We have considered the rival submissions and the arguments advanced by both sides, we observe that it is settled position of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal reported in [2001] 249 ITR 219(SC) that the approach of the Revenue in respect of the assessees, who are party to same transaction should be uniform. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Revenue cannot adopt the tactics of pick and choose while assessing the citizens of India, otherwise it would be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefo…

SANGEETA RAVINDRA CHANADAN,MUMBAI vs. 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 457/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…se of Atul G. Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT v. Credit Agricole Indosuez (2015) 377 ITR 102/120161.69 pxmmm.com.255 (Dom) (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI v. Satish P. Shah [20011 249 ITR 221/117 Taxman 373 (SC) (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal o an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subsequent decision following the earlier decision cannot be challenged. Further, it is not the Revenue's case before us that ther…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TURAIRAO , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54B

…e Co-owners also. However the revenue has filed appeal against the assessee only. No appeal has been filed by the revenue against the other Co-owners. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal 249 ITR 219 held that “ It is not open to the revenue to accept that judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessee without just cause.” He also submitted that the approach of the revenue is not consistent and uniform with regard to filing of appeal in the case of the assessee, therefore the appe…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

ITA 720/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 194Section 250

…below. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and the arguments advanced by both sides, we observe that it is settled position of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal reported in [2001] 249 ITR 219(SC) that the approach of the Revenue in respect of the assessees, who are party to same transaction should be uniform. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Revenue cannot adopt the tactics of pick and choose while assessing the citizens of India, otherwise it would be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefo…

LAXMILAL BADOLLA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 815/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Neha Shaya, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 271BSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years : 2016-17 The NFAC, Laxmilal Badolla, Vs. No.75, BTS Main Road, Delhi. Sankul Pharma, The Income Tax Officer, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560 030. Ward - 2(2)(7), Bengaluru. PAN – ACIPB 2149 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt Suman Lunkar, C.A Revenue by : Smt Neha Shaya, Addl CIT DR Date of hearing : 19.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R PER SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The present appeal of the assessee i…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…ase of other assessee without just cause. Similar observations have been made by the Supreme Court in the following cases : ITA No.499/SRT/2023 A.Y. 13-14 M/s S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. (1) Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 117 Taxman 375/249 ITR 219 (SC) (2) CIT v. Narendra Doshi [2002] 122 Taxman 717/254 ITR 606 (SC) (3) CIT v. Shivsagar Estate [2002] 124 Taxman 606/257 ITR 59 (SC) 31. The above judgements of the Supreme Court show the anxiety to prevent the income- tax authorities from taking different stand in the case of different assessee in respect of the same issue or taking different…

REPRO AUTO PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 21(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 2041/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshrepro Auto Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 177, W-7 Lane, Sainik Farms, Ward-21(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr6510R Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 48Section 50

…gainst the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102 (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI vs. Satish P. Shah 249 ITR 221 (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal on an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subsequent decision following the earlier decision cannot be challenged. Further, it is not the Revenue's case before us that there are any distingui…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 183/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 801BSection 92C

…national transaction of loans undertaken with the AE. It is the settled law that the Revenue has to be consistent in its approach and it is not open to the Revenue to take an inconsistent stand in the case of different assessee. [Ref. Kaumudini Narayan Dalai: 249 ITR 219 (SC) and Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT: 266 ITR 99 (SC)]. Therefore, consistent with the stand taken by the Revenue in the case of different assesses, the said filter, in our opinion, is to be uniformly applied in all cases. 23 ITA No.7154 /Del./2017 ITA No.7253/Del./2017 ITA No.7431 /Del./2017 ITA No.183/Del./2018 82.21 In view of the above…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7431/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 801BSection 92C

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7253/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 801BSection 92C

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7154/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 801BSection 92C

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. VEENA MIRDHA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1190/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…on the principle of res- judicata which does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Suffice is to say that when the facts are not different it is necessary to maintain consistency as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kumudini Narayan Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) and CIT vs. Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC). 11. The contention of the Revenue that Explanation I to section 147 has been overlooked is devoid of any merit. The provisions contained in the present Explanation I were contained earlier in the then Explanation 2 prior to substitution of section 147 w.e.f. 01.04.1989. While interpreting the Exp…

Showing 1–20 of 89 · Page 1 of 5