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

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

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…

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

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…

Aegis Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee,in part

ITA 2671/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/2671/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 Aegis Logistics Limited Acit, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaaca 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनु सार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा अनुसार लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनु अनु सार सार Challenging The Order,Dated 15/12/2010, Of The Cit (A)-1 Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Chemicals,Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/11/2006,Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs. 14.75 Crores.A Revised Return Was Filed On 28/03/2008 Reducing The Long-Term Capital Loss From The Returned Income.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment,U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 29/12/2008, Determin - Ing Its Income At Rs. 14. 85 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…000/-on the ground that provisions of section 50 of the Act, 1961 were not applicable to transfer of land and building, being a leasehold property?” The Hon’ble High Court referring to the judgements of Credit Agricole Indosuez (377 ITR 102) and Satish P Shah(249 ITR 221)held that the question as claimed by the revenue did not give rise to any substantial question of law.We find that in the case of Ricoh India Ltd.(ITA/ 4464/ Mum/2012),identical issue has been dealt by the Tribunal as under: “9. Ground no.2, is regarding the applicability of section 50C, in respect of the sale of lease hold property. 10. The asse…

Shapoorji Pallanji and Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3053/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Shapporji Pallonji Centre, Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Vs. 41/44 Minoo Desai Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Colaba Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacs6994C

Section 143(3)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…

` Niharika Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 6183/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2010-11 Niharika Education Society, Addl. Cit, Range-1, C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Ghaziabad. Chamber No.206-07, Vs. Ansal “Satyam”, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaatn 6147 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

…CHARITIES V. ADDL CIT 225 ITR 1010(SC) 11. ADDL CIT V. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MFG. ASS. 121 ITR I(SC) 12. RADHASOAMI SATSANG V CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 13. CIT V NEO POLY PACK (P) LTD. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (DEL) 14. UNION OF INDIA V SATISH PANALAL SHAH (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC). 12. Ld. DR submitted that principles of res-judicata are not applicable to income tax proceedings and, therefore, the assessment order in the case of K. S. Memorial For Education and Research (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that as far as the assessee’s 10 plea for following the principles…

Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3573/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3573/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ C/O. D. C. Jain & Co., R. N. 640, M. K. Road, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg., 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 3561 H (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3762/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers बनाम/ Room Ni. 640, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 24, 2Nd Fanaswadi, D. A. Lane, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 004 (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri D. C. Jain Revenue By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 13.03.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S

For Appellant: Shri D. C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3573/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers Dy. CIT, Range 4(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 6th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ C/o. D. C. Jain & Co., R. N. 640, M. K. Road, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg., 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACG 3561 H (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3762/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. CIT, R…

A.C.I.T.19(2), Mumbai vs. Alka Kiritkumar Upadhyay, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 2617/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2617/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) A.C.I.T. – 19(2), Smt. Alka Kiritkumar बनाम/ Room No. 315, 3 Rd Floor, Upadhyay, V. Piramal Chambers, Alka Bldg., 6T H Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai –400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapu0228Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…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…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3136/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) c. UOI & ORS. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) d. CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 606 (SC) 6.6 The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the disallowance uls 40A(3) and denial of deduction uls 80-IB being matters considered and decided in appeal, cannot be subjected to revision jurisdiction in terms of clause (c) of the Explanation to ITA NOS. 3132-3136…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3135/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) c. UOI & ORS. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) d. CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 606 (SC) 6.6 The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the disallowance uls 40A(3) and denial of deduction uls 80-IB being matters considered and decided in appeal, cannot be subjected to revision jurisdiction in terms of clause (c) of the Explanation to ITA NOS. 3132-3136…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3134/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) c. UOI & ORS. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) d. CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 606 (SC) 6.6 The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the disallowance uls 40A(3) and denial of deduction uls 80-IB being matters considered and decided in appeal, cannot be subjected to revision jurisdiction in terms of clause (c) of the Explanation to ITA NOS. 3132-3136…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3133/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) c. UOI & ORS. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) d. CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 606 (SC) 6.6 The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the disallowance uls 40A(3) and denial of deduction uls 80-IB being matters considered and decided in appeal, cannot be subjected to revision jurisdiction in terms of clause (c) of the Explanation to ITA NOS. 3132-3136…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3132/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (SC) c. UOI & ORS. vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal & Anr. (2001) 249 ITR 219 (SC) d. CIT vs. Shivsagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) : (2002) 124 TAXMAN 606 (SC) 6.6 The Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the disallowance uls 40A(3) and denial of deduction uls 80-IB being matters considered and decided in appeal, cannot be subjected to revision jurisdiction in terms of clause (c) of the Explanation to ITA NOS. 3132-3136…

Darshana B. Doshi, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 13(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5462/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Darshana B. Doshi Acit, Circle-13(3), 31, Broach Street, Devraj 430, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th बनाम/ Ratanshi Marg, Iron Market, Floor, M.K. Marg, Vs. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400009. Pan. No. Aabpd7806Q (राज"व /Revenue ) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(34)

…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…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kalypto Risk Technologies P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 32

…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…

Alka K. Upadhyaya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6227/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 Alka K. Upadhaya, Acit, 6-Alka Building, 15Th Road, Circle-19(2), बनाम/ South Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Santacruz (W), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400054 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaapu0288Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…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…

Preeti G Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 11(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7557/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2004-05 Mrs. Preeti G Mehta, Income Tax Officer, 22, Bennett Villa, Ward-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 27, Wode House, Colaba, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400001 M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Adrpm3856E

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23Section 23(4)

…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) 5 Mrs. Preeti G Mehta 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 warehou…

Auto Finance Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4458/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)

…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…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Laxmi Satyapal Jain, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4726/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

…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…

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

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

…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. Agarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 I…

R. Kundan & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6143/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 5Section 6Section 6(1)(c)Section 9

…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…