Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.

113 ITR 389High Court1978#1225 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer is competent to accept or draw proper inferences from auditors' reports. When books of accounts are audited by chartered accountants and there is no material on record to show they are unreliable, no addition challenging deductions supported by those books is tenable.

92

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. · 113 ITR 389 · section 143(3) · audited books of accounts · reliability of accounts · Assessing Officer powers · additions without material · burden of proof · auditors' report · income tax assessment · inference from audit

Also reported as

124 CTR 213

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 131Section 153CSection 132(4)Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 120(4)(b)section 3asection 2(15a)section 17(2)(iiia)abatement of assessmentsection 36(1)(v)section 4aillegal paymentsection 10(20)section 61section 46section 40a(7)

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.

Gravity Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 114/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.114/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Gravity Merchandise Private Limited Vs Acit, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata Alom House, 7B, Pretoria Street, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabcg 0623 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Fca नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 227(2)

…the shares which were sold by the assessee during the impugned assessment year and loss of Rs.34,93,533/- claimed. The ld. AR further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd., reported in [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as follows :- 6. In the present case, the relevant books of account in which detailed information as to the expenses which were claimed as deductions for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 are destroyed by fire in November, 1962. Under the Indian Evidence Act secondary evidence of the content…

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…filed is a good and valid evidence (in absence of any contrary evidence brought on record by the AO) and is binding upon all the concern. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 389 (Del) (DC 16-18) wherein it was held 19 Kailash Chand vs. ITO that if the account books were destroyed in fire then the audited accounts examined by the external auditors can be accepted as evidence in support of the return of income. Therefore, the addition / disallowance made by the AO is arbitrary and unsupported by any credible evidence and…

Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 203/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

…ot to make a pick and choose. We however, carefully examined the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Additional CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Limited 113 ITR 389. Our attention was also invited to the other judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mobile Pvt Ltd 328 ITR 17 on the impugned proposition of law. Since the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein, we confirm his order.” Following the principle of consistency, we have no hesitation to uphold the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 202/VIZ/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

…ot to make a pick and choose. We however, carefully examined the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Additional CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Limited 113 ITR 389. Our attention was also invited to the other judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mobile Pvt Ltd 328 ITR 17 on the impugned proposition of law. Since the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein, we confirm his order.” Following the principle of consistency, we have no hesitation to uphold the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 200/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

…ot to make a pick and choose. We however, carefully examined the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Additional CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Limited 113 ITR 389. Our attention was also invited to the other judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mobile Pvt Ltd 328 ITR 17 on the impugned proposition of law. Since the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein, we confirm his order.” Following the principle of consistency, we have no hesitation to uphold the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 199/VIZ/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

…ot to make a pick and choose. We however, carefully examined the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Additional CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Limited 113 ITR 389. Our attention was also invited to the other judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mobile Pvt Ltd 328 ITR 17 on the impugned proposition of law. Since the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein, we confirm his order.” Following the principle of consistency, we have no hesitation to uphold the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 198/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

…ot to make a pick and choose. We however, carefully examined the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Additional CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Limited 113 ITR 389. Our attention was also invited to the other judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mobile Pvt Ltd 328 ITR 17 on the impugned proposition of law. Since the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein, we confirm his order.” Following the principle of consistency, we have no hesitation to uphold the…

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 38/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 cuke M/s Spectrum Foods Limited The Income Tax Officer, Vs. L-5, B-II, Surya House, Krishna Jaipur Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCS 3704 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. jktLo dh…

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…dings. 6.12 The Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v CIT 119 ITR 996 held that, the proceedings for assessment before the Assessing Officer are quasi-judicial in character. The Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. 113 ITR 389 held that: While the word 'evidence may recall the oral and documentary evidence as may be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, the use of the word material shows that the ITO not being a court can rely upon material which may not be strictly evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of making an order of assessment.…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 80/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Act is also recognized by the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V.Jay Engg. Works Ltd{1978] 113 ITR 389. (".evidence in income-tax proceedings need not consist necessarily of evidence admissible under the Evidence Act but may consist of other material which has a probative value, the Tribunal was justified in taking such material into account "). In the light of the above the Assessing Officer's action amount in holding that the aforesaid of Rs.13,…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Act is also recognized by the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V.Jay Engg. Works Ltd{1978] 113 ITR 389. (".evidence in income-tax proceedings need not consist necessarily of evidence admissible under the Evidence Act but may consist of other material which has a probative value, the Tribunal was justified in taking such material into account "). In the light of the above the Assessing Officer's action amount in holding that the aforesaid of Rs.13,…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 78/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Act is also recognized by the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V.Jay Engg. Works Ltd{1978] 113 ITR 389. (".evidence in income-tax proceedings need not consist necessarily of evidence admissible under the Evidence Act but may consist of other material which has a probative value, the Tribunal was justified in taking such material into account "). In the light of the above the Assessing Officer's action amount in holding that the aforesaid of Rs.13,…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 77/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Act is also recognized by the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V.Jay Engg. Works Ltd{1978] 113 ITR 389. (".evidence in income-tax proceedings need not consist necessarily of evidence admissible under the Evidence Act but may consist of other material which has a probative value, the Tribunal was justified in taking such material into account "). In the light of the above the Assessing Officer's action amount in holding that the aforesaid of Rs.13,…

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 75/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Act is also recognized by the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V.Jay Engg. Works Ltd{1978] 113 ITR 389. (".evidence in income-tax proceedings need not consist necessarily of evidence admissible under the Evidence Act but may consist of other material which has a probative value, the Tribunal was justified in taking such material into account "). In the light of the above the Assessing Officer's action amount in holding that the aforesaid of Rs.13,…

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 74/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Act is also recognized by the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V.Jay Engg. Works Ltd{1978] 113 ITR 389. (".evidence in income-tax proceedings need not consist necessarily of evidence admissible under the Evidence Act but may consist of other material which has a probative value, the Tribunal was justified in taking such material into account "). In the light of the above the Assessing Officer's action amount in holding that the aforesaid of Rs.13,…

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 73/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Act is also recognized by the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V.Jay Engg. Works Ltd{1978] 113 ITR 389. (".evidence in income-tax proceedings need not consist necessarily of evidence admissible under the Evidence Act but may consist of other material which has a probative value, the Tribunal was justified in taking such material into account "). In the light of the above the Assessing Officer's action amount in holding that the aforesaid of Rs.13,…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhaptnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 67/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

…be provided in the books of account in the respective accounting years and therefore 80 provided during the FY 2011-12 being the year of finalization of expenses. On this issue, the Ld. AR relied on the case of Addl. CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Del.) and CIT vs. Marshall Sons Co. (I) Ltd [1995] 124 CTR 213. The Ld. AR further in his written submissions has stated that the Ld. CIT(A), Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2004-05 has deleted the addition with respect to prior period expenditure. He therefore pleaded that this may be allowed. Per contra, the Ld. DR relie…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 49/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

…be provided in the books of account in the respective accounting years and therefore 80 provided during the FY 2011-12 being the year of finalization of expenses. On this issue, the Ld. AR relied on the case of Addl. CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Del.) and CIT vs. Marshall Sons Co. (I) Ltd [1995] 124 CTR 213. The Ld. AR further in his written submissions has stated that the Ld. CIT(A), Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2004-05 has deleted the addition with respect to prior period expenditure. He therefore pleaded that this may be allowed. Per contra, the Ld. DR relie…

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 236/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

…be provided in the books of account in the respective accounting years and therefore 80 provided during the FY 2011-12 being the year of finalization of expenses. On this issue, the Ld. AR relied on the case of Addl. CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Del.) and CIT vs. Marshall Sons Co. (I) Ltd [1995] 124 CTR 213. The Ld. AR further in his written submissions has stated that the Ld. CIT(A), Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2004-05 has deleted the addition with respect to prior period expenditure. He therefore pleaded that this may be allowed. Per contra, the Ld. DR relie…

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 235/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

…be provided in the books of account in the respective accounting years and therefore 80 provided during the FY 2011-12 being the year of finalization of expenses. On this issue, the Ld. AR relied on the case of Addl. CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd [1978] 113 ITR 389 (Del.) and CIT vs. Marshall Sons Co. (I) Ltd [1995] 124 CTR 213. The Ld. AR further in his written submissions has stated that the Ld. CIT(A), Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2004-05 has deleted the addition with respect to prior period expenditure. He therefore pleaded that this may be allowed. Per contra, the Ld. DR relie…