Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Hamdard Laboratories (India) on 10 September, 2025
31. Radhasoami Satsang (supra) was relied upon by the Supreme
Court in CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd., (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1580 (2.66 seconds)Documents citing
Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh,Agra vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 November, 1991
Dcit Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs Wahid Sandhar Sugars Ltd, New Delhi on 29 May, 2023
At & S India Private Limited, Karnataka vs Assessee on 29 January, 2015
4.39 In view of the above decision, Your Honours may please appreciate that the
DRP has violated the 'principle of consistency' pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of Radhasoami Satsang v Commissioner of Income Tax (Supra)
and followed by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs.Reuters India (P)
Ltd. (supra). Though there was no material change in the circumstances in which the
appellant company operates, the DRP in the current year rejected the PLI (i.e 'cash
profit margin on sales') which was approved by the DRP in the earlier year and also
approved by the TPO for the assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2008-09.
Similarly, Fine-Line Circuits Ltd was accepted as a comparable company by the TPO
for the assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2008-09. However, the DRP, in the
current year, confirmed the action of the TPO in excluding the aforesaid company
from the list of comparable companies based on the action of the DRP in the earlier
year (i.e previous year 2005-06 / assessment year 2006-07).
Dcit (Ltu), New Delhi vs Max New York Life Insurance Company ... on 5 January, 2018
92. We even noted upto Assessment Year 2009-10, the Revenue has
consistently excluded amount appropriated for FFA out of the available
surplus for the purpose of ascertaining acturial surplus while computing profit
and gains of life insurance business of the assessee. Therefore, following
principle of consistency as has been held by Hon'ble SC in the case of
Radhasaomi Satsang Baug v CIT 193 ITR 321 & that of CIT v Excel Industries
129
Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl. Cit, New Delhi on 17 October, 2018
12.7. When a similar question was dealt with by the first appellate
authority and the Revenue accepted the same without preferring any
appeal thereon, it is not open for the Revenue now to contend that
Assessee's reliance on the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Radha Saomi Satsang v. CIT reported in 193 ITR 321 and, Berger
Paints v. CIT reported in 266 ITR 199, is also misplaced because in
these cases Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the situation
where the liability was certain, but what was not certain was the
quantum of such liability. There is no dispute that the same method of
accounting is regularly and consistently followed by the assessee as
such rule of consistency is applicable as per which under the similar
facts and circumstances, department ought to follow same approach on
an issue in other assessment years. We, therefore, respectfully
following the reasoning adopted by the coordinate Bench of this
Tribinal for the AY 2007-08, set aside the matter to the file of the
Assessing Officer with direction to decide the issue afresh after
affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the first
appellate order on the issue in the assessment year 2003-04, as
followed by this Tribunal for the AY 2007-08 also. Grounds 12 to 12.5
145 ITA No. 467/Del/2014
are disposed of accordingly."
Amway India Enterprises Private ... vs Ao-Nfac, National Faceless Assessment ... on 23 April, 2025
"3. Having heard learned counsel on the aforesaid issue, we find that the
Tribunal has taken a correct view by applying the principle of consistency.
It has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC).
The hon'ble the Supreme Court in that case had negated the argument
regarding application of principles concerning res judicata to the income-tax
proceedings. It was observed that where a fundamental aspect permeating
through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or
the other and the parties had allowed that position to be sustained by not
challenging that order then it would not at all be appropriate to permit that
position to be changed in a subsequent year.
Pune Mathadi Hamal And Other Manual ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune, ... on 27 June, 2024
6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges
that the decision of the Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang (supra)
would have no application to the facts of the present case for two
reasons viz. (a) that the decision itself states that it is restricted to the
facts of the case before it and would not have general application;
and (b) Besides, it is submitted that the issue of expenses to be
allowed and / or income to be assessed would be a subject matter of
separate consideration for each year that is unlike an issue deciding a
status of a person and / or a property which would in the absence of
any change in law and / or facts would permeate through various
11
ITA No.1012/PUN/2023
Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board [A]
years. Thus, the impugned order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and
the appeal requires admission.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl. Cit, New Delhi on 12 March, 2024
12.7. When a similar question was dealt with by the first
appellate authority and the Revenue accepted the same without
preferring any appeal thereon, it is not open for the Revenue now
to contend that Assessee's reliance on the case of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Radha Saomi Satsang v. CIT
reported in 193 ITR 321 and, Berger Paints v. CIT reported in
266 ITR 199, is also misplaced because in these cases Hon'ble
Supreme Court was considering the situation where the liability
was certain, but what was not certain was the quantum of such
liability. There is no dispute that the same method of accounting
is regularly and consistently followed by the assessee as such rule
of consistency is applicable as per which under the similar facts
and circumstances, department ought to follow same approach on
an issue in other assessment years. We, therefore, respectfully
following the reasoning adopted by the coordinate Bench of this
Tribinal for the AY 2007-08, set aside the matter to the file of
82
the Assessing Officer with direction to decide the issue afresh
after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per
the first appellate order on the issue in the assessment year
2003-04, as followed by this Tribunal for the AY 2007-08 also.
Grounds 12 to 12.5 624 145 ITA No. 467/Del/2014 are disposed
of accordingly." Thus, the issue is identical in assessee's own case
for A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, we are remanding back this issue
to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to decide the
issue afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Hence Ground No. 9 to 9.5 are partly allowed for statistical
purpose.
Tahreem Electricals (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 June, 2007
In our considered view, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) and also the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to above are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, reverse the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore that of the AO. Accordingly, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee.
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi on 12 March, 2024
12.7. When a similar question was dealt with by the first
appellate authority and the Revenue accepted the same without
preferring any appeal thereon, it is not open for the Revenue now
to contend that Assessee's reliance on the case of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Radha Saomi Satsang v. CIT
reported in 193 ITR 321 and, Berger Paints v. CIT reported in
266 ITR 199, is also misplaced because in these cases Hon'ble
Supreme Court was considering the situation where the liability
was certain, but what was not certain was the quantum of such
liability. There is no dispute that the same method of accounting
is regularly and consistently followed by the assessee as such rule
of consistency is applicable as per which under the similar facts
and circumstances, department ought to follow same approach on
an issue in other assessment years. We, therefore, respectfully
following the reasoning adopted by the coordinate Bench of this
Tribinal for the AY 2007-08, set aside the matter to the file of
82
the Assessing Officer with direction to decide the issue afresh
after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per
the first appellate order on the issue in the assessment year
2003-04, as followed by this Tribunal for the AY 2007-08 also.
Grounds 12 to 12.5 624 145 ITA No. 467/Del/2014 are disposed
of accordingly." Thus, the issue is identical in assessee's own case
for A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, we are remanding back this issue
to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to decide the
issue afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Hence Ground No. 9 to 9.5 are partly allowed for statistical
purpose.