Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.

67 ITR 11Supreme Court of India1968#241 most cited

What is Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. authority for?

The mere lawful reorganization of a business transaction does not automatically imply an intent to evade tax, and genuine business adjustments should not be considered suppressive actions without clear evidence of such intent.

321

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. A. Raman & Co. · 67 ITR 11 · lawful reorganization of business · tax evasion · bona fide business practices · genuine business adjustments · intent to evade tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40(a)(i)Section 147Section 35DSection 80HHCSection 28(iiid)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 153b(i)(a)section 132(8)section 132(9a)section 153(1)(a)section 145avaluation of sharessection 65bsection 65section 153(1)icdsdumb documentssection 153b

Judgments citing Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 684/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

…by us, wherein it has been held that when the transaction is within the parameters of law, the same cannot be said to be fraudulent, neither a colourable device. Further that, Hon’le Supreme Court has held in case of CIT vs. A. Raman & Co., reported in (1968) 67 ITR 11 that the tax payer may do planning to reduce its tax liability, provided provisions of law are complied with. 16. Accordingly, we find KSPL had implemented the scheme in accordance with the relevant provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and also in compliance with Section 2(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO of the predecessor company KIPL ca…

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 683/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

…by us, wherein it has been held that when the transaction is within the parameters of law, the same cannot be said to be fraudulent, neither a colourable device. Further that, Hon’le Supreme Court has held in case of CIT vs. A. Raman & Co., reported in (1968) 67 ITR 11 that the tax payer may do planning to reduce its tax liability, provided provisions of law are complied with. 16. Accordingly, we find KSPL had implemented the scheme in accordance with the relevant provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and also in compliance with Section 2(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO of the predecessor company KIPL ca…

Kifs International LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1) Presently With ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 682/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 682, 683 & 684/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19) Kifs International Llp Acit बनाम/ B-81, Pariseema Complex, Circle-5(2)(1), Vs. C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Narayan Chambers Ahmedabad 380006 Building, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad [Presently With Acit, Central Circle 1(4), 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Ashrma Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfk2892L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.Rs. Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit. Dr & Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr (On 08.11.2023) & Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit.Dr (On 30.01.2024) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/11/2023 & 30.01.2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 08/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 14.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)

…by us, wherein it has been held that when the transaction is within the parameters of law, the same cannot be said to be fraudulent, neither a colourable device. Further that, Hon’le Supreme Court has held in case of CIT vs. A. Raman & Co., reported in (1968) 67 ITR 11 that the tax payer may do planning to reduce its tax liability, provided provisions of law are complied with. 16. Accordingly, we find KSPL had implemented the scheme in accordance with the relevant provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and also in compliance with Section 2(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO of the predecessor company KIPL ca…

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…sed by the assessing officer are correct or proper cannot be made, as held in case of CIT vs are correct or proper cannot be made, as held in case of CIT vs are correct or proper cannot be made, as held in case of CIT vs A.Raman & Co. (19 A.Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11, 16 (SC). If there are in fact some 68) 67 ITR 11, 16 (SC). If there are in fact some reasonable grounds for assessing officer to believe that there had reasonable grounds for assessing officer to believe that there had reasonable grounds for assessing officer to believe that there had been any non been any non-disclosure as regards material fact,…

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…sed by the assessing officer are correct or proper cannot be made, as held in case of CIT vs are correct or proper cannot be made, as held in case of CIT vs are correct or proper cannot be made, as held in case of CIT vs A.Raman & Co. (19 A.Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11, 16 (SC). If there are in fact some 68) 67 ITR 11, 16 (SC). If there are in fact some reasonable grounds for assessing officer to believe that there had reasonable grounds for assessing officer to believe that there had reasonable grounds for assessing officer to believe that there had been any non been any non-disclosure as regards material fact,…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it. Suspicious cannot take place the evidence 1. DCIT v. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012 dt.20/8/2014 2. K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); 3. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); 4. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.', (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); 5. Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT', (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Income assessed without evidence is bad-in-law. Income assessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified. 1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.) 2. VINOD SOLANKI VS. UOI (233) ELT 157 (S.C.) 3. CIT V. KASHIRA…

Vilson Roofing Products Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

ITA 956/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

For Appellant: Mr Sharad Vaze [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M G Jasnani [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 68

…e validity of a notice on the ground that conditions precedent reopening of case does not exist, but an investigation, whether the inferences raised by the assessing officer are correct or proper cannot be made, as held in case of CIT vs A. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11, 16 (SC). If there are in fact some reasonable grounds for assessing officer to believe that there had been any non-disclosure as regards material fact, whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the court to investigate because sufficiency of the ground which induced assessing officer to act is not a justifiable issue as held by H…

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

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

ITA 468/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 43CSection 44A

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 468/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Paik ACIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/o S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AFLPP6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /D…

Shri Sumer Chand Verma (HUF), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1277/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmashri Sumer Chand Verma (Huf), Vs. Acit, 2608/3, 1St Floor, Bank Street, Central Circle-23, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaihs3982D

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench “G”: New Delhi Before Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member Shri Sumer Chand Verma (HUF), Vs. ACIT, 2608/3, 1st Floor, Bank Street, Central Circle-23, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAIHS3982D Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/10/2023 Date of pronouncement 05/10/2023 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1277/Del/2012 for AY 2008-09, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income…

Smt. Bharti Singh, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Amritsar

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 226/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

…e was issued were not found to exist, and in our view, the moment such is the position, the ITO does not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment. Our this view, finds support from the Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. A. Gaura Joshi Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd, vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 245 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT : (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) . Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Ganeshilal Lal Chand (1984) 43 CTR (Rai) 120 : (1985) 154 ITR 274 (Raj). 9. Following the coordinate Bench decision in “Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer”, (Sup…

Smt. Bharti Singh, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Amritsar

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 222/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

…e was issued were not found to exist, and in our view, the moment such is the position, the ITO does not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment. Our this view, finds support from the Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. A. Gaura Joshi Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd, vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 245 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT : (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) . Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Ganeshilal Lal Chand (1984) 43 CTR (Rai) 120 : (1985) 154 ITR 274 (Raj). 9. Following the coordinate Bench decision in “Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer”, (Sup…

Smt. Bharti Singh, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Amritsar

Appeals of the appellant are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 221/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal, Adv. &
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

…e was issued were not found to exist, and in our view, the moment such is the position, the ITO does not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment. Our this view, finds support from the Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. A. Gaura Joshi Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd, vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 245 Bharti Singh v. Asstt.CIT : (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) . Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Ganeshilal Lal Chand (1984) 43 CTR (Rai) 120 : (1985) 154 ITR 274 (Raj). 9. Following the coordinate Bench decision in “Gaurav Joshi versus Income Tax Officer”, (Sup…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…purchasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate would not entitle the income tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser as profit of the assessee. In CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 the Supreme Court held that the law does not oblige a trader to make the maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions. Income which actually accrues is taxable, but income which the assessee could have, but has not in fact earned, is not made taxable.” Therefore, from the aforestated judicial pronouncements, it is clear that what has…

M/S Salitho Ores Private Limited, Panaji vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - M1, Margao

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…purchasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate would not entitle the income tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser as profit of the assessee. In CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 the Supreme Court held that the law does not oblige a trader to make the maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions. Income which actually accrues is taxable, but income which the assessee could have, but has not in fact earned, is not made taxable.” Therefore, from the aforestated judicial pronouncements, it is clear that what has…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…purchasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate would not entitle the income tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser as profit of the assessee. In CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 the Supreme Court held that the law does not oblige a trader to make the maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions. Income which actually accrues is taxable, but income which the assessee could have, but has not in fact earned, is not made taxable.” Therefore, from the aforestated judicial pronouncements, it is clear that what has…

Sahara Housingfine Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kol., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 504/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…ssessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.’ 4. This view has been followed by a Full Bench of the Karnataka Hig…

Shree Someshwar Ssk Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

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

ITA 1957/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Prasanna L. Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane, DR

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna SSK, (2012) 211 Taxman…

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT (LTU-1) v. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 PAN: AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/MUM/2002 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5030/MUM/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited v. ACIT (LTU-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400…

ACIT Cir -4(2) (1), Thane vs. M/S. Mukti Gold Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee’s C

ITA 1804/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…on basis of assumption. There must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. My view further gets support from the following judicial precedents:- 1. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968): 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/S CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4. Dhirajlal Girdharilal V/S CIT (26 ITR 734) (SC) 5. Dr. Anita Sahai V/S DIT (266 ITR 597) (All) 6. MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. V/S ITO [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)- CIT- IV v. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd [2013] 34 taxmann.com 32…

ITO Ward 31(4), New Delhi vs. Damini Wadhwa, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

ITA 3146/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

…such presumption or statement, if any, is corroborated with material evidence. The ratio laid down in Dr. Anita Sahai vs DIT 266 ITR 597 (All.), Dheerajlal Girdharilal vs DCIT 26 ITR 734 (SC), CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8(SC), CIT vs Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC), Modi Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2011) 13 taxman.com 114(Del.), CIT vs Shree Rama Multitech Ltd. (2013) 34 taxman.com 32 (Guj.) and CIT vs Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 158 taxman 440 (Del.) supports our view. Thus, we affirm the stand of the First Appellate Authority, resulting into dismissal of the impugned grounds, raised…