Chokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT

107 ITR 63High Court1977#1857 most cited

What is Chokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT authority for?

The purpose of income tax assessment is to correctly determine the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. An admission made by an assessee, if based on an incorrect or erroneous impression, is relevant but not conclusive and can be clarified or withdrawn later.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT · 107 ITR 63 · income-tax assessment · correct taxable income · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · assessee admission · admission not conclusive · withdrawal of admission · Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Chokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 997/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 997/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income International Seaports (Haldia) Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Vs Pvt. Ltd. 41, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road Kanak Building 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aaaci9468D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudipto Ghosh, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Kolkata- 4/10691/2015-16, Vide Order Dt. 14/02/2018, Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13, Dated 27/03/2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Company Stating That The Expenditure Of Rs.5,21,03,578/- Made On Account Of Repairing Work Made By The Concern M/S. Portek Systems & Equipments Pte. Ltd., Singapore Was Revenue Expenditure. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Not Appreciating The Facts That The Aforesaid Repairing Work Was Not Routine Repairing Works Of The Assessee Company & It Required Technical Assistance To Bring The Ship Unloaders In A Good Condition For Future Works. Ay: 2012-13 International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. 2

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudipto Ghosh, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 40

…shed product. 5. Prestige Foods Ltd. vs. DCIT In reconstruction, the whole structure does not require to be demolished. The expense incurred on the reconstruction will be treated as capital expenditure. 6. ACIT vs. E I Dupont The expenditure is to bring into (107 ITR 63) existence a sophisticated communication system to bring about connectivity of the assessee's office in Delhi and Bombay with other establishments of the assessee in India and abroad. The expenditure is not merely on wires and cables etc. but AY: 2012-13 International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. 12 expenditure is on installation of sophisticated n…

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

…93 (mum) (ii). Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mum); and (iii). CIT vs. Ramco International [2009J 180 Taxman 584 (Punj. & Har.) (iv). Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT [1984J 150 ITR 460 (Bom) (v). Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 63 (Guj.); (vi). CIT vs. Shri. Someshwar Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. [1989]177 ITR 443 (Bom) (affirmed, by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mahendra Mills [2000J 243 ITR 56 (SC) (vii). ITO vs. Cosmic Engg. CO. [1984J 20 TTJ (Ahd.) 271, 273. All the aforesaid case laws also hold that the CIT has the power to allow fresh claim made by the assessee for the first…