Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) vs Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad on 20 October, 2003

Deputy Director Of Income Tax vs Shanti Devi Progressive Education ... on 10 February, 2011

30. There is also a second aspect to the present case arising from the principles of consistency. It is not in dispute that the Society was duly registered under Section 12A of the said Act on the basis of its Memorandum of Association. There has been no change in the Memorandum of Association. The Society continues to run the schools which is the object with which the Society was set up. The exemption under Section 10(22) of the IT Act has been available to the respondent/assessee for a number of years prior to the assessment years in question and even for the subsequent years as stated by learned counsel for the assessee. It is in these circumstances that the legal position set out on the principle of consistency would come into play as observed in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lagan Kala Upvan‟s case (supra) and Director of Income Tax v. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad‟s case (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Punjab Bone Mills on 19 September, 2005

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Vikas Chemi Gum India , the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of IT v. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad and the decision of the Tribunal Chandigarh Bench in the case of Dy. CIT v. United Vanaspati Ltd. (2004) 83 TTJ (Chd) (TM) 201 : (2005) 275 WR 124 (Chd) (TM) (AT). In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned disallowance. We confirm his order and reject this ground of appeal of the Revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Chaman Lal And Sons on 30 July, 2004

9. Another important aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the assesses has claimed before us that in the subsequent years also deduction was claimed on identical pattern and was allowed accordingly. The learned Departmental Representative was required to verify the factual position in this regard. On next hearing, it was reported by him that the deduction was allowed, in the course of proceedings under Section 143(3), as stated on behalf of the assessee and further no action under Section 263 was taken. Keeping into consideration this fact that the assessee was allowed deduction in the same fashion even after the passing of the instant assessment order, we are at a loss to appreciate any logic in persuing the matter in appeal. Albeit the principle of res judicata is not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Act, yet, the doctrine of consistency does not permit the Departmental authorities to change its stand when there is no change in the facts or laws in one year vis-a-vis the other, warranting departure. Our view gets support from a recent decision rendered in the case of Director of IT v. Lovely Bal Shikshan Parishad (2004) 266 ITR 349 (Del). In view of the aforenoted factual and legal position, it becomes apparent that the learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to allow deduction in respect of profit from the trading operations in Karnal unit. We uphold the impugned order on this score.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Protinkem on 15 September, 2005

7.1 Even otherwise, we are of the view that principle of consistency demands that similar treatment should be accorded for all the assessment years. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT , Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of IT v. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad , the decision of Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of Dy. CIT v. United Vanaspati Ltd. (2004) 83 TTJ (Chd)(TM) 201 : (2004) 275 ITR 124 (Chd)(TM)(AT), In the case of CIT v. Vikas Chemi Gum India , the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that if the Department did not contest the decision of CIT(A) for deleting the addition for the earlier asst. yr. 1986-87, it could not challenge similar order passed in relation to asst. yr. 1988-89. No doubt, in this case, the order was passed by the CIT(A), but the fact remains that the Department has not made any addition for any of the assessment years; even though GP rate was low and process loss was higher in respect of many other assessment years as compared to the assessment year under reference. Therefore, there is no justification for taking a different view for the assessment year under reference. Taking into account these facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) was justified in holding that provisions of Section 145(3) were not applicable and consequently the trading addition has been rightly deleted. We confirm his order and reject both the grounds of appeal of the Revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sadhu Singh Gurdip Singh vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 August, 2005

"9. Another important aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the assessee has claimed before us that in the subsequent years also deduction was claimed on identical pattern and was allowed accordingly. The learned Departmental Representative was required to verify the factual position in this regard. On next hearing, it was reported by him that the deduction was allowed in the course of proceeding under Section 143(3), as stated on behalf of the assessee and further no action under Section 263 was taken. Keeping into consideration this fact that the assessee was allowed deduction in the same fashion even after the passing of the instant assessment order, we are at a loss to appreciate any logic in pursuing the matter in appeal. Albeit the principle of res judicata is not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Act, yet, the doctrine of consistency does not permit the Department authorities to change its stand when there is no change in the facts or laws in one year vis-a-vis the other, warranting departure. Our view gets support from a recent decision rendered in the case of Director of IT v. Lovely Bal Shikshan Parishad . In view of the aforenoted factual and legal position, it becomes apparent that the learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to allow deduction in respect of profit from the trading operations in Karnal unit. We uphold the impugned order on this score."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Umaid Charitable Trust vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 2 May, 2008

In Director of Income Tax v. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad , the Delhi High Court observed that in view of the fact that no change in the nature of activities had been pointed out and the assessee had been granted exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, not only in respect of the earlier years but subsequent years as well, the assessee was entitled to exemption in the assessment year 1991-92.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 34 - Cited by 21 - V Kothari - Full Document

The Bandi Co-Operative Labour And ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 May, 2006

11. It is a settled law that each year is independent assessment year. In the case in hand on a scrutiny of the material on record and from a perusal of the books of account whatever produced by the assessee, it was found that the assessee was not able to satisfy the authorities with regard to its claim for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. This being the position, it would not be just to claim that merely because in the earlier years or in the subsequent years the assessee had got exemption, the same should be granted in this year as well in spite of the fact that on a perusal of the record before the AO, the assessee was not found to be entitled for the same. Reliance upon a judgment of this Court in CIT v. Haryana State Co-operative Labour Construction Federation Ltd (2001) 161 Taxation 284 (P&H) and Delhi High Court in Director of IT v. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad is totally misplaced. Since the assessee had neither pleaded before any authorities below nor placed on record any material before any of the authorities below to show that there was no change of facts during the period, the exemption was (not) granted to the assessee. Hence, even this contention of the assessee is found to be without any merit.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Asstt. Dir. It (Exemption) vs Prakash Education Society on 17 June, 2004

In this regard, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decision in Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad (2004) 266 ITR 349 (Del), CIT v. Lagan kala Upvan (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del) and Radbasomi Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321(SC). As such, the ground becomes academic since we have allowed exemption under section 10(22) to the assessed.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next