358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

308 ITR 161Supreme Court of India2008#4028 most cited

What is 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. authority for?

An addition made by an Assessing Officer without proper application of mind and inadequate enquiry can be the basis for revision under Section 263. Lack of evidence, such as a Partnership Deed, cannot solely lead to an adverse inference if other facts support the assessee's position.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. · 358 ITR 295 SC · CIT vs. J.K. Charitable Trust · 308 ITR 161 SC · Section 263 · inadequate enquiry · non application of mind · revision · adverse inference

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 194asection 44asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

Mohd. Const. Co., Kota vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

ITA 649/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 44A

…rom the settled practice on facts and in law both, between the parties, in absence of any new material or changed circumstances. Kindly refer UOI And Ors vs Major S.P. Sharma And Ors (2014) 6 SSC 351 (SC), CIT vs. J.K. Charitable Trust (2008) 220 CTR 105 (SC)/308 ITR 161 (SC), CIT v/s K.J. Business Centre (2009) 24 DTR 99 (Del.). We may submit that past history has been held to be the best guide in the cases of fair estimation. Kindly refer CIT v/s Popular Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 630 (Cal.), MA Rauf v/s CIT (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat.). In CIT v/s Gupta K.N. Construction Co. (2015) 116 DTR 377 (Raj.) h…

Sh. Sunder Lal Semwal, Haridwar vs. ACIT, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1901/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. B. Ramnujaneyula, Sr. DR
Section 80I

…quent year. It was submitted that the ld. Authorities below have to follow the rule of consistency. Reliance is placed for this proposition on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.358 ITR 295 (SC) (ii). CIT vs. J.K. Charitable Trust, 308 ITR 161 (SC) 7 ITA No.1901/Del./2014 It was further submitted the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the similar addition in appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 has realized the mistake committed by him in appeal for A.Y. under consideration observing as under : "In this connection, it needs to be put on record that, while deciding the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08 (A…

Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3573/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3573/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ C/O. D. C. Jain & Co., R. N. 640, M. K. Road, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg., 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 3561 H (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3762/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers बनाम/ Room Ni. 640, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 24, 2Nd Fanaswadi, D. A. Lane, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 004 (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri D. C. Jain Revenue By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 13.03.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S

For Appellant: Shri D. C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 143(3)

…list of such negative shares as at the beginning and the end of the year (PB pg. 58). The assessee’s accounts are duly audited, and which should therefore be accepted, following the rule of consistency, placing reliance on CIT vs. J.K. Charitable Trust [2009] 308 ITR 161 (SC) and Union of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC). The ld DR. on the other hand, relied on the orders by the Revenue authorities. 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The facts as emanating from the material on record give rise to a number of questions and, accordingly, issues, which would requi…

Sh. Raj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2821/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 24(1) A 2/31, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi 110 029 Pan: Aagpj 5125 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…specifically drew the attention of the Bench to the assessment order for the A.Y. 2012-13, which is an order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and relied on the following cases. (i) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (S.C.) (ii) CIT vs. JK Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (S.C.) (b) That the amount of loan taken was utilized for purchase of controlling interest of M/s Garabond Hotels Pvt.Ltd. He argued that when funds are borrowed for acquiring controlling interest in an enterprise, the interest paid on such funds is allowable as deduction, as acquiring controlling interest in companies and managing, administratin…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 259/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…principle of consistency also the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) " Radha Saomi Satsang Vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) " CIT Vs J. K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (SC) 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held as under: “Loss” suffered by the assessee on accoun…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 258/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…principle of consistency also the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) " Radha Saomi Satsang Vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) " CIT Vs J. K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (SC) 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held as under: “Loss” suffered by the assessee on accoun…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Watches Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2769/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…principle of consistency also the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) " Radha Saomi Satsang Vs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) " CIT Vs J. K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (SC) 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held as under: “Loss” suffered by the assessee on accoun…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 775/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…0/- --- 143(1) (78) 2005-06 1,91,75,160/- --- 143(3) (58A-58G) 2006-07 3,81,76,000/- --- 143(1) Reliance was placed on rule of consistency as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Saomi Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 and CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 vi) That burden was upon the Assessing Officer and not on the assessee to establish that, what had been paid by way of commission would have been payable by way of dividend, which on the facts of appellant remains undischarged vii) That since there existed no statutory requirement under the Income Tax Act , 1961 or even under the Companies Act'…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 709/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…0/- --- 143(1) (78) 2005-06 1,91,75,160/- --- 143(3) (58A-58G) 2006-07 3,81,76,000/- --- 143(1) Reliance was placed on rule of consistency as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Saomi Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 and CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 vi) That burden was upon the Assessing Officer and not on the assessee to establish that, what had been paid by way of commission would have been payable by way of dividend, which on the facts of appellant remains undischarged vii) That since there existed no statutory requirement under the Income Tax Act , 1961 or even under the Companies Act'…