Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

108 ITR 736High Court1977#8863 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2022.

Judgments citing Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…he Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As poi…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…he Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As poi…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 212/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…he Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As poi…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 211/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…he Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As poi…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…he Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As poi…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…he Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As poi…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…he Tribunal has erred in law in assuming that there are two views in the matter. One, as held in the abovereferred to CIT vs. E.V. Rajan [1985] 151 ITR 189 (Mad) ; Cement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 586 (Mad) ; A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad) ; CIT (Addl.) vs. Bhoopathy (E.) [1978] 113 ITR 188 (Mad) ; Rathnam and Co. vs. IAC [1980] 124 ITR 376 (Mad) and CIT vs. Mir Mohamed Ali [1981] 128 ITR 215 (Mad) and another, as held in Bombay Hardware. Syndicate vs. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 586 (Mad) ; (14 ITR 133 (Mad) (sic.)) and Addl. CIT vs. T.K. Perumalswamy [1984] 150 ITR 600 (Mad). As poi…

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1829/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ows, on the :-23-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 subject. Only sample cases are given. There is catena of decisions in this regard. ” 13.1 Thereafter, the CIT (A) analysed the decisions of the Madras High Court in A.K Bashu. Sahib v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad), Delhi High Court decisions in Qammar-ud-din & Sons v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 703/[1980] 4 Taxman 154 (Delhi),CIT v.Kalindi Rail Nirman, Engg. Ltd [2014] 51 taxmann.com 523 (Delhi) and ShyamBehari v. Assistant Commissioner of income tax (Investigation Circle), Hissar (Haryana) [2011] 43 SOT 129 (Delhi)and held that even if the additions are o…

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1828/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ows, on the :-23-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 subject. Only sample cases are given. There is catena of decisions in this regard. ” 13.1 Thereafter, the CIT (A) analysed the decisions of the Madras High Court in A.K Bashu. Sahib v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad), Delhi High Court decisions in Qammar-ud-din & Sons v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 703/[1980] 4 Taxman 154 (Delhi),CIT v.Kalindi Rail Nirman, Engg. Ltd [2014] 51 taxmann.com 523 (Delhi) and ShyamBehari v. Assistant Commissioner of income tax (Investigation Circle), Hissar (Haryana) [2011] 43 SOT 129 (Delhi)and held that even if the additions are o…

DCIT, VILLUPURAM vs. D.SANTHA, KALLAKURICHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1803/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ows, on the :-23-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 subject. Only sample cases are given. There is catena of decisions in this regard. ” 13.1 Thereafter, the CIT (A) analysed the decisions of the Madras High Court in A.K Bashu. Sahib v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad), Delhi High Court decisions in Qammar-ud-din & Sons v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 703/[1980] 4 Taxman 154 (Delhi),CIT v.Kalindi Rail Nirman, Engg. Ltd [2014] 51 taxmann.com 523 (Delhi) and ShyamBehari v. Assistant Commissioner of income tax (Investigation Circle), Hissar (Haryana) [2011] 43 SOT 129 (Delhi)and held that even if the additions are o…

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ows, on the :-23-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 subject. Only sample cases are given. There is catena of decisions in this regard. ” 13.1 Thereafter, the CIT (A) analysed the decisions of the Madras High Court in A.K Bashu. Sahib v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 736 (Mad), Delhi High Court decisions in Qammar-ud-din & Sons v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 703/[1980] 4 Taxman 154 (Delhi),CIT v.Kalindi Rail Nirman, Engg. Ltd [2014] 51 taxmann.com 523 (Delhi) and ShyamBehari v. Assistant Commissioner of income tax (Investigation Circle), Hissar (Haryana) [2011] 43 SOT 129 (Delhi)and held that even if the additions are o…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELH-II vs. KALINDI RAIL NIRMAN ENGG. LTD

The appeal of the revenue is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA/244/2013HC Delhi15 Apr 2014
Section 142Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…than the rate adopted by the assessee in the return of income, there can be no inference that the assessee concealed his profits. There is no such absolute proposition and this has been brought out by the Madras High Court in Bashu Sahib vs. CIT, (1977) 108 ITR 736. There the assessee who was a bus operator filed a return in which he estimated the income at Rs.8,000/- per bus which was on the basis of the income determined by the Tribunal in his own case for an earlier assessment year. In the course of the assessment proceedings he denied having maintained books of accounts and also did not produce t…