115 ITR 524 (SC); Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT

257 ITR 764High Court2002#15527 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing 115 ITR 524 (SC); Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144Section 145

…C. Velukutty 11966) 60 ITE 239 (SC); State of Orissa, Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo (1970) 76 IT 690 (SC): Brij Bhusan Lal Pardaman Kumar v. CIT (1978) 115 TIR 524 (SC); Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam RVS and Sons Dairy Farm v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 764 (Mad): International Forest Co v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K): M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Ker); Ramchandra Ramnivas v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 501 (Orissa Action Electricals v. Deputy CII [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (Gauhati) indicate that the AO is not fettered by any technical…

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…CIT Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 • ITO Vs. Somsons & Co., 148 Taxman 21 (Asr) (Mag) • Pandit Bors. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 159 (Punj) • S. Veeriah Reddiar Vs. CIT 38 ITR 152 (Ker) • P. Venkanna Vs. CIT 72 ITR 328 (Mys) • R.V.S. and Sons Dairy Farm Vs. CIT 257 ITR 764 (Mad) • CIT Vs. Superior Crafts in ITA No. 244/2009, 547/2011, 548/2011 and 615/2011(Del) dt. 06/03/2012 • CIT Vs. Jacksons House 198 Taxman 385 (Del) • CIT Vs. Winner Constructions (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 796/2011(Del) dt. 03/05/2012 • Lunar Electricals Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 195/2006(Del) dt. 22/03/2012 • Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271…

M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2438/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR

Section 43B

…issa v. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo [1970] 76 ITR 690 (SC); Brij Bhusan Lal Parduman 12 ITA 2419, CO 181, ITA 2438/Ahd/2015 Kumar v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC); Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam); R.V.S. and Sons Dairy Farm v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 764 (Mad); International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J & K) ; M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Ker); Ramchandra Ramnivas v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 501 (Orissa); Action Electricals v. Deputy CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (Gauhati) indicate that the AO is not fettered by any tech…

THE ITO, WARD-4(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2419/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR

Section 43B

THE ASSTT. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S KRISHNA DEVELOPERS,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the ground raised by the assessee in the CO is allowed

ITA 620/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.620/Rjt/2014 With C.O.No.4/Rjt/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 A.C.I.T., M/S.Krishna Developers, Circle-1, Business Centre, Vs. Junagadh. 1St Floor, Bus Station Road, Lal Bahadur Society, Junagadh.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R

Section 145(3)

…profit at the rate of 8% from the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, which does not apply to the assessee. 7.6 We find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of R.V.S. & sons dairy farm Vs. CIT (2002) reported in 257 ITR 764 wherein it was held as under: “Each year is an independent unit for which the liability for tax has to be determined, and this would be so even when the assessee’s account books are not accepted. Nevertheless, the examination of the available data, or estimate for each year separately would have to be considered, and only thereafter the liability…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. REXAM HTW BEVERAGES CAN(INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Rexam Htw Beverages Dcit, Circle -15(1), New Delhi Can(India) Ltd., 448, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi Pan : Aabch7101B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shailesh Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing 22.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 27/08/2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi (In Short ‘The Cit-A’) For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating Die Reasons For Rejecting The Books Of Accounts Given By The Assessing Officer In The Order Itself. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Facts That During Assessment Proceedings, Gross Disparities Between The Results Shown By The Assessee Were Found Which Is An Appropriate Reason-To- Invoke The Provision Of Section 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 145Section 145(3)

…ing books of accounts is not based on any concrete finding. Appellant’s reliance on the following case laws is appreciated:- (i) 26ITR 159 (Punj) Pandit Bros. v. CIT (ii) 38 ITR 152 (Ker) S. Veeriah Reddiar v. CIT (iii) 72 ITR 328 (Mys) P. Venkana v. CIT (iv) 257 ITR 764 (Mad) R. V. S. and Sons Dair Farm vs. CIT (v) 38 ITR 579 (SC) S.N. Namasivayam Chettial vs. CIT 8 7.5 After considering the facts in totality, I find that there is no merit in the finding of the Assessing Officer to reject books of accounts and Assessing Officer should have not applied a flat rate of 5% on the total turnover especially in a case…