Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Revenue cannot alter accounting system position in subsequent years without challenging fundamental aspect across different assessment years</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong Versus M/s North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited</h3> Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong Versus M/s North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited - [2024] 469 ITR 4 (Meghalaya) Issues Involved:1. Quashing of revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Mercantile system of accounting and trade receivables.3. Hybrid system of accounting and interest on debtors on cash basis.4. Adherence to Ministry of Power's direction on accounting for interest on cash basis.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Quashing of Revisionary Proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961The Department challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision to quash the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, 1961. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, had initially set aside the assessment order for the year 2014-2015, directing a re-computation of the Company's income. The ITAT quashed these proceedings, leading to the Department's appeal. The High Court observed that once the order under Section 263 was quashed, any subsequent order based on it was invalid. The Principal Commissioner did not satisfy the conditions under Section 263, and thus, the revisionary order could not stand.Issue 2: Mercantile System of Accounting and Trade ReceivablesThe Department argued that the Company followed the mercantile system of accounting and had shown Rs. 791.90 crores as trade receivables. The ITAT and the CIT (Appeals) had rightly set aside the assessing officer's order, adding surcharge to the income of the assessee. The High Court referenced the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment in 'The Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hisar,' which held that hypothetical income should not be taxed merely because of an entry in the books of account. The High Court found no error in the ITAT's decision.Issue 3: Hybrid System of Accounting and Interest on Debtors on Cash BasisThe Department focused on the Company's use of a hybrid system of accounting, particularly regarding 'interest on debtors on a cash basis,' which they argued contravened Section 145 of the IT Act, 1961. The High Court noted that the issue involved a question of fact already decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. The High Court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Excel Industries Ltd.,' which emphasized that hypothetical income should not be taxed and that consistent judicial views should not be altered without convincing reasons.Issue 4: Adherence to Ministry of Power's Direction on Accounting for Interest on Cash BasisThe Department argued that the Company was obliged to follow the Ministry of Power's direction to account for interest on a cash basis. The High Court noted that the method of Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) on a cash basis had been consistently followed by the Company since 2003-2004 and recognized through various judicial pronouncements. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's decision, which was consistent with previous judicial views and the Company's established accounting practices.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the Department's appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The ITAT's order quashing the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 was upheld, and the Company's accounting practices were found to be consistent with judicial precedents. The High Court emphasized that hypothetical income should not be taxed and that consistent judicial views should not be altered without compelling reasons. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found