Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal

249 ITR 219Supreme Court of India2001#1277 most cited

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

Consistency must be maintained in income-tax proceedings when the facts are not different, even though res judicata does not strictly apply. A consistent view taken in a particular year should not be departed from in subsequent years without contrary material.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal · consistency in assessment · judicial discipline · absence of contrary material · income tax proceedings · departure from previous view · section 143(3) · section 144B · section 10B(2)

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

profit split methodresale price methodsection 92(1)right to receivetransactional net margin methodsection 92bcup methodarms length pricemost appropriate methodsection 92ca(3)section 48tnmm

Judgments citing Union of India v. Kumudini N. Dalal

Bharat Bhushan Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 54(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Bharat Bhushan Jain, Vs Ito, 61, Central Road, Bhogal, Ward-54(2), New Delhi-110014. New Delhi. Pan-Aafpj7453F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pushkar Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.05.2022

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 50CSection 69Section 69A

…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…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1554/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…only in the case of assessee the appeal has been filed before the High Court. Such a pick and choose approach is not as per law as it amounts to discrimination as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr - 249 ITR 219 as under:- ‘’The order under challenge in this appeal by the Revenue followed the earlier judgment of the same High Court in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 113 CTR (Guj) 75 : (1993) 204 ITR 866 (Guj). Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the papers before us suggest that a special leave petition was pref…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1553/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…only in the case of assessee the appeal has been filed before the High Court. Such a pick and choose approach is not as per law as it amounts to discrimination as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors vs Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr - 249 ITR 219 as under:- ‘’The order under challenge in this appeal by the Revenue followed the earlier judgment of the same High Court in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 113 CTR (Guj) 75 : (1993) 204 ITR 866 (Guj). Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the papers before us suggest that a special leave petition was pref…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…allowed to flip- flop on the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers' money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it.” ii) (2001) 1 SCC 748 State of Andhra Pradesh v A.P. Jaiswal iii) 266 ITR 99 (SC) CIT vs. Berger Paints iv) 249 ITR 219 (SC) UOI vs. Kuomidini Narayan Dalai and Another v) 249 ITR 221 (SC) UOI vs. Satish Panna Lai Shah vi) 308 ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust 9. On the contrary learned DR opposed the submissions and submitted that the assessee has not filed these evidences before the assessing authority. He submitted that the evidence filed by the ass…

ACIT-8 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5754/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit-8(1)(1) M/S Royal Western Turf Club Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Limited, Mahalaxmi Race Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Course, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Ahuja. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) iv. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) v. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275ITR124) (AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vi. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) vii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F.Varghese vs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 IT…

Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

ITA 534/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As regards ground of appeal No. 3 of assessee's appeal relat…

Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

ITA 533/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As regards ground of appeal No. 3 of assessee's appeal relat…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 375/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As regards ground of appeal No. 3 of assessee's appeal relat…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 374/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As regards ground of appeal No. 3 of assessee's appeal relat…

Bridge & Building Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 10(1), Kolkata

ITA 2116/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the addition so made by ld AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) may kindly be deleted and accept the income as declared and oblige. 3] As regards ground of appeal No. 3 of assessee's appeal relat…

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. We can, in the circumstances, conclude that the Tribunal's interpretation was accepted by the Revenue and they are precluded from taking an inconsistent stand now. (See Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [(2001) 10 SCC 231 : (2001) 249 ITR 219] .)” 78. The question involved in the said case, was whether the respondent assessees were entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification having regard to the terms of the Explanation contained in the Notification. This Court, proceeded to consider the case on merits and found that the goods in question were covered by th…

M/S Shubham Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ellenabad vs. DCIT, Circle, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…the A.O. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) • Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. Vs. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT Vs. Berger Paints 266 ITR 99(SC) • UOI Vs. Kuomidini Narayana Dalal and Another 249 ITR 219 (SC) • UOI Vs. Satish Panna Lal Shah 249 ITR 221 (SC) • CIT Vs. J.K Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (SC) • S.N. Namasivayam Chettial Vs. CIT 38 ITR 579 (SC) • CIT Vs. Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 (Del) • CIT Vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA NO. 999/2010 dt. 03/08/2010 • CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del) • CIT Vs. Jas Jack Eleganc…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dalmia Finance Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.27,76,92,000/-, Ground No.2 is accordingly allowed

ITA 5184/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)

…se on disposal of those plots, taken by the mortgagee as a charge thereon, should be excluded from the taxable income. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UOI vs Kaumudini Narayan Dalal (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) and many others that once the revenue has accepted an issue on facts in the case of one assessee, then the revenue cannot agitate the same in the case of another assessee. Thus, the claim of the appellant must be accepted. 3. The learned CIT(A) despite admitting the additional ground of appeal, yet did not give any reasons as to why the abov…

Dalmia Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

Accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.27,76,92,000/-, Ground No.2 is accordingly allowed

ITA 4656/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)

…se on disposal of those plots, taken by the mortgagee as a charge thereon, should be excluded from the taxable income. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UOI vs Kaumudini Narayan Dalal (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) and many others that once the revenue has accepted an issue on facts in the case of one assessee, then the revenue cannot agitate the same in the case of another assessee. Thus, the claim of the appellant must be accepted. 3. The learned CIT(A) despite admitting the additional ground of appeal, yet did not give any reasons as to why the abov…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1455/MUM/2016[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Daniel, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

…mbers and the same has not been challenged before the higher forum. This is a settled position of law as has been held in the following cases. a. Berger Paints India Ltd v. C1T [266 ITR 99, 104 (SC)]. [Page 538-554 of PB No. 4] b. UOI v. Satish Pannalal Shah [249 ITR 221, 222 (SC)]. [Page 555-556 of PB No. 4] c. CIT v. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt Ltd [389 ITR 68, 69 (Bom.)]. [Page 557-559 of PB No. 4] 37. On perusal of the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and Coordinate benches of Tribunal in case of the family members of the appellant, we are of the view that the relief has been rightly granted by the Ld. C…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(1) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1367/MUM/2016[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Daniel, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

…mbers and the same has not been challenged before the higher forum. This is a settled position of law as has been held in the following cases. a. Berger Paints India Ltd v. C1T [266 ITR 99, 104 (SC)]. [Page 538-554 of PB No. 4] b. UOI v. Satish Pannalal Shah [249 ITR 221, 222 (SC)]. [Page 555-556 of PB No. 4] c. CIT v. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt Ltd [389 ITR 68, 69 (Bom.)]. [Page 557-559 of PB No. 4] 37. On perusal of the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and Coordinate benches of Tribunal in case of the family members of the appellant, we are of the view that the relief has been rightly granted by the Ld. C…

Dharampal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1946/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Dharampal Brothers Pvt. Dcit-9(3)(1) Room No.215, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Mehra Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Compound, Sakinaka, Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacd4297R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 50C Do Not Apply To A Leasehold Land. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Decision Of The Bombay High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P) Ltd. 389 Itr 68 (Bombay) Wherein The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Held That Section 50C Does Not Apply To Leasehold Land. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.40,87,381/- As Short Term Capital Gain & Rs.1,65,91,485/- As Long Term Capital Gains.”

For Appellant: Shri Shekar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 50C

…anik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT v. Credit 4 A.Y. 2015-16 Agricole Indosuez (2015) 377 ITR 102/(2016) 69 taxmann.com 285 (Bom) (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI v. Swish P. Shah (2001) 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 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 the…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…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. 82.21 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) while deleting the addi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…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. 82.21 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) while deleting the addi…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…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. 82.21 In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) while deleting the addi…