What is Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT authority for?

Income accrues and becomes taxable only when there is a reasonable certainty of its realization. A mere possibility or expectation of income, particularly when subject to ongoing disputes, is not enough for it to be considered accrued.

How many judgments cite Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT?

196 judgments on BharatTax cite Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT (24 ITR 481), spanning 2005 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 154, Section 69, Section 143(1).

Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT (24 ITR 481)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Daawat Foods Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 4042/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80I

…ccounting propounded by the ICAI, and also has been approved/accepted for the purpose of the computing the taxable income by various Courts and Tribunals from time to time. In this context, the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT 24 ITR 481 and CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (SC) along with United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) relied by the Ld. AR are applicable in the present case. Further, there is no evidence for undisclosed sale which was pointed out by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A) in their respective orders. Thus, the addition made by the Asses…

Ajaz Farooqi, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 786/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…cquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR 1353 22. M/s BS Ltd., ITA No. 2187/Hyd/2017 23. Shri P. Madhusudan Reddy, ITA Nos. 1373 to 1375/Hyd/12 24. Maruti Securities Ltd., 468/Hyd/2009 25. H.M. Kashiparekh & Co Ltd., 379 ITR 706 (Bom.) 26. Hind Construction Ltd., 83 ITR 211 27. Sanjeev Woolen Mills, 149 Taxman 431 28. Lok Housing & Construction ltd., 58 taxmann.com 179. (Bom) 29. Lok Housing & Construction ltd., 27 taxmann.com 15 (Mumbai ITAT) 30. Lok Housing & Construction ltd., 70 taxmann.com 2 (SC) 31. Shoorji Vallabhdas & CO., [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) 32. Excel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 33. Pruthvi Brokers & Sha…

DCIT, Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ozone India Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2081/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT.D.R

Section 56(2)(viib)

…land and for accounting purposes, as land of book value of Rs.5.38 crore has been revalued at Rs.59.55 crore and taken as stock in trade. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chain Rup Sampatram Vs. CIT [224 ITR 481] and CIT Vs. Hind Construction Ltd. [83 ITR 211] has held that putting the stock at market value does not and cannot bring in any real profit which is necessary for taxing the income. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. [89 ITR 266] and CIT, Bombay City 1 Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. in 46 ITR 144 has laid down that it is the real income which is taxable…

Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 46, (Now DCIT Cent. Cir. 8(3)), Mumbai

ITA 4984/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 4984/Mum/2016 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 1608/09, Prasad Chambers, Income Tax, Opera House Central Circle-46, Mumbai फनाभ/ (Now Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Vs. Circle 8(3), Mumbai) (अऩीराथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामीरेखासिं./Pan No. Aaccr 2413 B आमकयअऩीरसिं./ Ita No. 5829/Mum/2016 (ननधाायणवषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-46, Mumbai 1608/09, Prasad Chambers, फनाभ/ (Now Deputy Commissioner Of Opera House Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Vs. Mumbai) (अऩीराथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Shri Sushil Kumar

Section 142Section 143(3)

…experts opinions on valuation. Moreover any addition in closing stock is tax neutral as the closing stock of the current year will become the opening stock of the following year. Even the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Chainswarup Sampatram as reported in 24 ITR 481(SC) has held that it is wrong to think that any profit rises out of valuation of stocks. Therefore even stock addition appears to wrong and fallacious and rightly been deleted by the ld CIT(A). 19. The other grounds raised are not being adjudicated as the jurisdictional and time barring issue have been in favour of the assessee. ITA Nos. 4984 & 5…

Bharat K Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4648/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2140/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1527/Mum/2005 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2822/Mum/2006 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2747/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2749/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.8547/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2746/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 10. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 11. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2252/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) &

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld.Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Oommen Thorian -Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…ance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Kesavdas Ranchhod Das V/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 as well as Chainrup Sampatram V/s CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 while arriving at such a conclusion. The bench held that an inactivity or lull in the business of the assessee for some years cannot conclusively dislodge the claim of the assessee that it was carrying on the business of trading in shares. Further, the valuation of stock-in-trade was in conformity with the method of valuation of stock in trade tha…

Bharat K Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2253/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2140/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1527/Mum/2005 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2822/Mum/2006 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2747/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2749/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.8547/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2746/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 10. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 11. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2252/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) &

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld.Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Oommen Thorian -Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…ance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Kesavdas Ranchhod Das V/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 as well as Chainrup Sampatram V/s CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 while arriving at such a conclusion. The bench held that an inactivity or lull in the business of the assessee for some years cannot conclusively dislodge the claim of the assessee that it was carrying on the business of trading in shares. Further, the valuation of stock-in-trade was in conformity with the method of valuation of stock in trade tha…

DCIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M. M. Poonjiaji Spices Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5310/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 143(3)

…njiaji Spices Ltd., assessee had regularly followed AS-2 issued by the ICAI for valuation of stock. The assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT reported in 24 ITR 481. (b) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Pepperi-Fuchs (India) Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 6 SOT 10 (c) Decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Wolkem India Ltd., reported in 221 CTR 767 (d) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 53 Taxmann.com 232. (e) D…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Nalwa Investment Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/822/2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…amalgamating company which were held as stock-in-trade, would result in income chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gain of business or profession”. 27. Mr. Vohra relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampantram vs. CIT, 1953 24 ITR 481 (SC) to argue that as long as the ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 29 of 37 stock-in-trade remain with the trader and if appreciation/ depreciation in its value is notional, it is not subject to taxability. There is no dispute regarding this proposi…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Mansarovar Investments Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA/961/2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…amalgamating company which were held as stock-in-trade, would result in income chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gain of business or profession”. 27. Mr. Vohra relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampantram vs. CIT, 1953 24 ITR 481 (SC) to argue that as long as the ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 29 of 37 stock-in-trade remain with the trader and if appreciation/ depreciation in its value is notional, it is not subject to taxability. There is no dispute regarding this proposi…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Abhuinandan Investments Lt

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 853 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…amalgamating company which were held as stock-in-trade, would result in income chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gain of business or profession”. 27. Mr. Vohra relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampantram vs. CIT, 1953 24 ITR 481 (SC) to argue that as long as the 2020:DHC:2490-DB ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 29 of 37 stock-in-trade remain with the trader and if appreciation/ depreciation in its value is notional, it is not subject to taxability. There is no dispute regard…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S M/S Jindal Equipment Leasi

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 935 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…amalgamating company which were held as stock-in-trade, would result in income chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gain of business or profession”. 27. Mr. Vohra relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampantram vs. CIT, 1953 24 ITR 481 (SC) to argue that as long as the 2020:DHC:2490-DB ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 29 of 37 stock-in-trade remain with the trader and if appreciation/ depreciation in its value is notional, it is not subject to taxability. There is no dispute regard…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Mansarovar Investments Ltd

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 961 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…amalgamating company which were held as stock-in-trade, would result in income chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gain of business or profession”. 27. Mr. Vohra relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chainrup Sampantram vs. CIT, 1953 24 ITR 481 (SC) to argue that as long as the 2020:DHC:2490-DB ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 29 of 37 stock-in-trade remain with the trader and if appreciation/ depreciation in its value is notional, it is not subject to taxability. There is no dispute regard…

Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha , ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…in the present batch of civil appeals." [Emphasis own] 22. This judgment applies to the facts of the case in all force. The entire exercise is revenue neutral. The revenue has accepted the method over the years. 23. In the case of Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT (24 ITR 481), the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Supreme Court has held that while valuing closing stock, anticipated losses are taken into account and that the anticipated profit in the shape of appreciation in the value of stock is not brought into account. This case law, in our considered opinion, is not of much help to assessee. 24. The Ho'ble Bombay High Cou…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 174/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Podar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35ESection 37Section 37(1)

…of the year without taking into account the value of the stock one has at the beginning of, and at the end of, the accounting year. c) Source of Profit & Gains: It was let down authoritatively by Supreme Court in the case of Chain Rup SampatramVs CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 that the source of profits and gains of a business is indubitably the business and the place of there accrual is where the business is carried on. The Supreme Court emphasizes that it is a misconception to think that any profit "arises out of the valuation of closing stock" and sites of its arising or accrual is where the valuation is made." The v…

ITO 22(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Newtech (India0 Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3251/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)

…till date, as is the uncontroverted stand of the assessee. Clearly, therefore, the income in question never accrued to the assessee. Principle of conservatism, which has been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Chainrup Sampatram Vs CIT [(1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC)], has, at its foundation, simple approach that while a loss is to be accounted for as soon as it can be reasonably anticipated, the anticipated profits are not accounted for until these profits actually arise. In the case of E D Sassoon & Co Ltd Vs CT [(1954) 36 ITR 27 (SC)], on which learned counsel for the assessee has placed heavy reliance…

Alliance Mall Developers Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -2(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2742/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Gerald-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

….” 10. In support of the above findings, this Court had placed reliance on the following decisions of the apex Court: ITA No.2742-43/Mum/2018 Alliance Mall Developers Co. Private Limited Assessment Years :2013-14 & 14-15 (1) Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC); (2) Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SC); and (3) A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT (1991) 93 CTR (SC) 133 : (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC). 11. We may recapitulate the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT(supra) : “ A taxpayer is free to employ, for the purpose of his trade, his own method of keeping accounts,…

United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 75/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(1)(ii)Section 35D(2)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank of India Vs. ACIT, LTU-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACU5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 aris…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…pugned provision also confirms AS-7 applicable “accounting for construction contracts” as per various judicial precedents taken note of the CIT(A)’s discussion. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chainrup Sampatram (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) held long back that although the principles of conservatism and prudence in accounting require that no anticipated profits are to be recorded as income until realised, the converse is not true regarding anticipated losses which could be booked at the first sign of reasonable probability. We conclude in view of all these foregoing facts that t…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…pugned provision also confirms AS-7 applicable “accounting for construction contracts” as per various judicial precedents taken note of the CIT(A)’s discussion. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chainrup Sampatram (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) held long back that although the principles of conservatism and prudence in accounting require that no anticipated profits are to be recorded as income until realised, the converse is not true regarding anticipated losses which could be booked at the first sign of reasonable probability. We conclude in view of all these foregoing facts that t…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…pugned provision also confirms AS-7 applicable “accounting for construction contracts” as per various judicial precedents taken note of the CIT(A)’s discussion. Hon'ble apex court’s landmark judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chainrup Sampatram (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) held long back that although the principles of conservatism and prudence in accounting require that no anticipated profits are to be recorded as income until realised, the converse is not true regarding anticipated losses which could be booked at the first sign of reasonable probability. We conclude in view of all these foregoing facts that t…

Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT

What is Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Daawat Foods Ltd., New Delhi

Ajaz Farooqi, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad

DCIT, Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ozone India Ltd, Ahmedabad

Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 46, (Now DCIT Cent. Cir. 8(3)), Mumbai

Bharat K Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

Bharat K Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3)(2), Mumbai

DCIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M. M. Poonjiaji Spices Ltd., Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Nalwa Investment Ltd

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Mansarovar Investments Ltd

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Abhuinandan Investments Lt

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S M/S Jindal Equipment Leasi

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Mansarovar Investments Ltd

Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

ITO 22(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Newtech (India0 Developers, Mumbai

Alliance Mall Developers Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -2(3), Mumbai

United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata