Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)

Powerloom Developement & Export ... vs Ito (E) 2(2), Mumbai on 24 July, 2018

iii. Appellant contended that it has been granted exemption u/s. 11 in all earlier years and since there is not change in circumstances in the current year, exemption u/s. 11 should have been alloed by the assessing officer. In this regard it is mentioned that the principle of resjudicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Thus leal position is settled and clear that „Rule of Consistency‟/ re-judicata is not applicable and each M/s Powerloom Development & Export Promotion Council Vs. ITO(E)-2(2) - A.Y. 2012-13 5 ITA No. 1185/Mum/2017 assessment year is a separate proceedings, as also affirmed in the decision of the Apex court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India (S.C) 282 ITR.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S T.D.M. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Lko. on 20 August, 2019

Then, it also cannot be denied that in other case being Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. C.T.T., [2014] 72 VST 362 (All) 362, another learned Judge of this Court again considered the scope of the word machinery appearing in the Schedule to the Entry Tax Act. It was again reiterated that instruments imported by the assessee would fall within the term machinery and its parts. Merely because they may be considered to be electronic equipment, would not make any difference. On such reasoning and after a detailed discussion of the precedent found existing, it was held that the general consensus in the context of 'machinery' is that it is a device used for a particular purpose or result which takes energy in any form but results in combined functioning to achieve the work which otherwise may not be possible by human physical efforts or power, i.e., without help of such devices.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S D Singh - Full Document
1