Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Cit vs H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. on 2 August, 2007

Gujarat State Financial Services ... vs Assessee

'6. We have heard learned DR and learned AR. We noticed that the assessee entered into five lease transactions with GSRTC. They are - first transaction was in financial year 1993-94 when, depreciation was claimed at Rs.59,97,155/-. The second lease transaction was also entered into in A.Y. 1994-95 wherein depreciation of Rs.40,18,720/- was claimed and allowed. The third lease transaction was entered into in F.Y. 1996-97 on which the depreciation approx of Rs.2,00,06,325/- was claimed. Forth transaction took place in A.Y 1998-99 in which depreciation of Rs.4,01,38,576/- was claimed and allowed. Fifth also took place in A.Y 1998-99 in which the depreciation of Rs.7,99,42,946/- was claimed. It is stated by the learned AR of the assessee that no fresh lease transaction has taken place this year and depreciation in respect of old lease transactions has only been claimed this year. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, as propounded in CIT vs. H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. 311 ITR 436, CIT vs. Malborough Polychem Pvt. Ltd.ΒΈ308 ITR 43; CIT vs. Moonlight Builders and Developers 307 ITR 197 and ACIT vs. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. 263 ITR 679 wherein it is held that even though in income-tax proceedings principle of res-judicata is not applicable, but consistency has to be maintained unless there is manifest distinguishable facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Msk Projects (India) Ltd., Baroda vs Assessee on 7 August, 2009

In this regard we may notice that Assessing Officer has not taken any action for disallowing interest in Construction Division in earlier years even though there were interest bearing funds borrowed by the assessee and interest thereon was paid. If no interest payment by Construction Division has been disallowed for transfer of funds from Construction Division to Infrastructure Division then, it is presumed that transfer of funds in earlier years was out of interest free funds and to that extent payment of interest this year cannot be disallowed. Following the rule of consistency, as described in 1. CIT v. H.P.Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. (2009) 311 ITR 436 (P&H); 2.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitesh Trading Co.,, Dahod vs Assessee

13. Even otherwise, reopening of the assessment is bad on another account also. Once the department has allowed the deduction u/s. 80IA in the earlier assessment years and also in the subsequent assessment years and no action has been taken to reopen or set aside or revise the assessment for these years, even though assessee had pointed out this fact to the department during the course of re-assessment proceedings, then following the rule of consistency the department should have allowed deduction u/s. 80-IA or in the alternative they ought to have taken action in all the years, wherever law permitted, if they thought that conversion of Udad into Udad Dal is not a manufacturing activity within the meaning of section 80IA. Having not done so the A.O. ought to have followed the rule of consistency and ought not to have taken action this year also. The principle of consistency cannot permit the revenue to take a stand contrary to the one accepted by it. (CIT vs. H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. (2009) 311 ITR 436 (P & H).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat State Financial Services ... vs Department Of Income Tax

Forth transaction took place in A.Y. 1998-99 in which depreciation of Rs.4,01,38,576/- was claimed and allowed. Fifth also took place in A.Y. 1998-99 in which the depreciation of Rs.7,99,42,946/- was claimed. It is stated by the learned AR of the assessee that no fresh lease transaction has taken place this year and depreciation in respect of old lease transactions has only been claimed this year. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, as propounded in CIT vs. H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. 311 ITR 436, CIT vs. Malborough Polychem Pvt. Ltd., 309 ITR 43; CIT vs. Moonlight Builders and Developers 307 ITR 197 and ACIT vs. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. 263 ITR 679 wherein it is held that even though in income-tax proceedings principle of res- judicata is not applicable, but consistency has to be maintained unless there is manifest distinguishable facts. In earlier years, claim of depreciation was accepted by the revenue which has now become final, the revenue cannot disallow the present claim, unless facts and circumstances are distinguishable. Therefore, the revenue is required to maintain a judicial consistency between itself and taxpayers. As a result, we do not find any merit in the claim of the revenue and this ground of the revenue is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Msk Projects (India) Ltd., Baroda vs Assessee on 7 August, 2009

In this regard we may notice that Assessing Officer has not taken any action for disallowing interest in Construction Division in earlier years even though there were interest bearing funds borrowed by the assessee and interest thereon was paid. If no interest payment by Construction Division has been disallowed for transfer of funds from Construction Division to Infrastructure ITA No.1384/Ahd/2006 ITA No.1385/Ahd/2006 (Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2001-2002) Division then, it is presumed that transfer of funds in earlier years was out of interest free funds and to that extent payment of interest this year cannot be disallowed. Following the rule of consistency, as described in 1. CIT v. H.P.Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. (2009) 311 ITR 436 (P&H); 2.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitesh Trading Co.,, Dahod vs Assessee on 17 August, 2010

"13. Even otherwise, reopening of the assessment is bad on another account also. Once the department has allowed the deduction u/s. 80IA in the earlier assessment years and also in the subsequent assessment years and no action has been taken to reopen or set aside or revise the assessment for these years, even though assessee had pointed out this fact to the department during the course of re-assessment proceedings, then following the rule of consistency the department should have allowed deduction u/s. 80- IA or in the alternative they ought to have taken action in all the years, wherever law permitted, if they thought that conversion of Udad into Udad Dal is not a manufacturing activity within the meaning of section 80IA. Having not done so the A.O. ought to have followed the rule of consistency and ought not to have taken action this year also. The principle of consistency cannot permit the revenue to take a stand contrary to the one accepted by it. (CIT vs. H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. (2009) 311 ITR 436 (P & H).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1