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#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.

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 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

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 3114/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…

DCIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western Indua Turf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3237/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt Mamta Bansal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Salis Kapoor

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.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) ITA Nos. 3237 /Mum/2017 M/s. Royal Western India turf Club Ltd., Mumbai. viii 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 UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Sat…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2375/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ivables and as such, principle of consistency needs to be followed and relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) & Union of India vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC). 19. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the AO/CIT(A). 20. When undisputedly identical issue has already been decided by the TPO in favour of the taxpayer by not imputing any interest on outstanding receivables, the TPO in the instant case has no option except to follow the rule of consiste…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Erstwhile Known As Boeing Intl. Corp. India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

ITA 2374/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Datar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 192Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Raj Pal Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Haryana

In the result, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed

C.A. No.-002416-002416 - 2010Supreme Court25 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 256(1)Section 4Section 45Section 6

…over possession of the land under acquisition by the Government. The learned counsel has relied upon the following observations in Berger Paints India Ltd. (supra):- “In view of the judgments of this court in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 219; CIT v. Narendra Doshi [2002] 254 ITR 606 and CIT v. Shivsagar Estate [2002] 257 ITR 59, the principle established is that if the Revenue has not challenged the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court and has 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 a…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Jignesh Virambhai Rabari, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 363/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…income or as income from other sources is not at all relevant, nor has it met the judicial approval anyway. We reject the plea of the learned Departmental Representative. We may also add that in the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal 8. [2001] 249 ITR 219, 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 rev…

Powernetics Equipment India P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…against 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 Indosuez377 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 thereare any distinguis…

Manugraph India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 338/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Manugraph India Limited Asst. Cit-3(2)(1) Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Sidhwa House, N. A. Sawant Marg, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 7246 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi : Shri V. Jenardhan Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 : 04.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Shri Pranay Gandhi

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…Satsang v CIT (193 ITR 321). • CIT v Berger Paints (266 ITR 99 (SC)) • DhansiRam Aggarwalla v CIT (217 ITR 4 (Gau)) • CIT V Shree Ram Memorial Foundation (158 ITR 3 (Del)) • CIT v Neo poly Pack (245 ITR 492 (Del)) • UDI v Kuomidini Narayan Dalal and Another (249 ITR 219 (SC)) • UOl v Satish Panna Lal Shah (249 ITR 221 (SC)) • CIT v J.K. Charitable Trust (308 ITR 161 (SC)) • Racold Thermo Limited (ITA No.1454/PN/2010) dated 11 September 2015 • Affinity Express India Pvt Ltd (ITA No.595/PN/2013) dated 29 April 2015 2.21 In light of the above decisions, it is respectfully submitted that the floating rate charged b…

M/S. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ITO 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 152/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 2Section 50BSection 50C

…e had not preferred any appeal against the order of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Atul G. Puranik Vs. ITO (2011) 11 ITR 0120 on the question of law by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Satish P. Shah 249 ITR 221. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench rendered in the case of Atul G. Puranik Vs. ITO (supra). The facts in that case as noted by the Tribunal that the assessee was allotted rights in the plot on 16th August, 2004 as compensation for the acquisition of lands acquired by the Special Land Acqui…

Jagmal Joshi, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(5), Noida

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

ITA 2934/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 269U

…sessee, however, he supported the order of the lower authorities. 7. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Anrs. [2001] 249 ITR 219 (SC) has held as under : “In PRADIP RAMANLAL SHETH v. UNION OF INDIA [1993] 204 ITR 866, the Guja-rat High Court had decided, inter alia, that the appropriate authority had no power, authority or jurisdiction, in ascertaining the discounted value of the apparent consideration, under section 269UD of the Income- tax Act, 1961, to deduct from the…

Satypal Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3965/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘E’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, CC-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-III, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AABPJ1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, ACIT, 82, Maker Chambers-III, CC-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Satypal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3831/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Section 131

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trans Freight Containers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3532/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Trans Freight R.No.609, 6Th Floor Containers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 72-73, Nariman Bhavan M.K.Road, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact1447P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 41Section 41(1)Section 50C

…the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been 5 M/s. Trans Freight Containers Ltd., 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 Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4439/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 1/9-B, Jindal House, Circle-5(2), बनाम/ Asaf Ali Road, C.R. Building, Vs. Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 ("नधा%&रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacc2744C

Section 14A

…IT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. 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 UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257…

Ravi Kumar Agarwal, HUF, Agra vs. I.T.O.-2(4), Agra

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 229/AGR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 143(3)

…ts and circumstances of the case. ! am fortified in my view by the judgments of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Godavari Corporation Ltd., 156 JTR 835 (MP), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Satish Panalai Shah 249 ITR 221 (SC), decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vilkas Chemi Gum India 276 ITR 32 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Swami Satsang Vs. CIT, 193 ITR 32 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Swami Satsang Vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321. I.T.A No. 229/Agra/2016 4 9. On consideration of…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5570/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &

Section 143(3)Section 263

…CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii 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 UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 I…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western India Truf Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 5569/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D T Garasia & Shri N K Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Singh &

Section 143(3)Section 263

…CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) AT) (Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii 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 UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsang vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 I…

Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Gtl Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10BSection 143(1)

DCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Janki Newsprint Ltd., Meerut

In the result, the both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4938/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: 1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld

…thin the ambit of section 80-1 of the Act, the Revenue cannot be allowed to now turn around and contend that deduction under the said section is not available to them in respect of the present assessment years. In Union of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221, apex court has also deprecated the practice of the Department in accepting the correctness of a judgment on a particular issue in one case and challenging its correctness in another case". ITA No. 4938 and 16 3232/Del./2015 6. It is also trite law that Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman or in the p…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…eo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.); Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 (Del.); and Union of India & others Vs. Kaumudini 42 M/s Salasar Developers ITA No.4511 TO 4513/Mum/2014 Narayan Dalal & another 249 ITR 219 (SC). From this angle also, the assessee is having a strong case in its favour. 8.16. Leave apart, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is expected to complete the project as per the approved plan at a particular point of time and the assessee is not expected to do or to fulfill the conditions which are not in existence at the rele…