rule of consistency — 1,041 case laws

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. The ACIT(Exemption) Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1998/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

required as per statute and hence not relevant. 5.7 The appellant has finally relied and argued on the legal issue of 'Rule of Consistency' in the context of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. under appeal before ... principle of res-judicata does not apply. In fact the conclusion drawn by the A.O and legal position is settled and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 700/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

required as per statute and hence not relevant. 5.7 The appellant has finally relied and argued on the legal issue of 'Rule of Consistency' in the context of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. under appeal before ... principle of res-judicata does not apply. In fact the conclusion drawn by the A.O and legal position is settled and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2075/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

required as per statute and hence not relevant. 5.7 The appellant has finally relied and argued on the legal issue of 'Rule of Consistency' in the context of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. under appeal before ... principle of res-judicata does not apply. In fact the conclusion drawn by the A.O and legal position is settled and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1077/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

required as per statute and hence not relevant. 5.7 The appellant has finally relied and argued on the legal issue of 'Rule of Consistency' in the context of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. under appeal before ... principle of res-judicata does not apply. In fact the conclusion drawn by the A.O and legal position is settled and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5086/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

required as per statute and hence not relevant. 5.7 The appellant has finally relied and argued on the legal issue of 'Rule of Consistency' in the context of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. under appeal before ... principle of res-judicata does not apply. In fact the conclusion drawn by the A.O and legal position is settled and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2240/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

required as per statute and hence not relevant. 5.7 The appellant has finally relied and argued on the legal issue of 'Rule of Consistency' in the context of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. under appeal before ... principle of res-judicata does not apply. In fact the conclusion drawn by the A.O and legal position is settled and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1806/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 250

required as per statute and hence not relevant. 5.7 The appellant has finally relied and argued on the legal issue of 'Rule of Consistency' in the context of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. under appeal before ... principle of res-judicata does not apply. In fact the conclusion drawn by the A.O and legal position is settled and clear that 'Rule of Consistency' /res-judicata is not applicable and each assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat

Lions Club of Malad Borivali Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemptions, Mumbai

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

ITA 1458/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lions Club Of Malad Borivali Cit Exemptions, Charity Trust, 601,6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills, Pd Lions College, Sv Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026. Sunder Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaatl 1407 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Shankarlal Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

welfare fund and other fund to the balance sheet and therefore in view of the balance sheet and therefore in view of rule of consiste consistency, the Assessing Officer accepted the contention of the assessee in the Assessing Officer accepted the contention of the assessee in the Assessing Officer accepted ... ground of the assessee is the relevant material on record. The main ground of the assessee is that in view of rule of rule of consistency, the assessee is entitled for consistency, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 11 deduction u/s 11 of the Act without satisfying provision

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

facts are also identical, respectfully following the above decision in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 1997-98 and also following rule of consistency, we dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue. 35. With regard to Ground No. 3 and 4 which are in respect of allowing relief