CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu

53 ITR 114Supreme Court of India1964#1556 most cited

What is CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu authority for?

An Income Tax Officer assessing income must determine the assessee's system of accountancy and, for the mercantile system, ascertain when the right to receive the income legally accrued.

73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu · 53 ITR 114 · income accrual · year of taxability · mercantile system of accounting · right to receive income · assessment procedure · system of accountancy · Section 145 · ITO powers

Sections most often in play

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ACSection 37Section 40A(9)Section 10B(8)Section 194Section 194ASection 32AD

Issues it is cited on

section 139(3)section 10(2)(xv)section 32asection 170section 40a(9)section 276section 145a(b)section 32(1)(iia)section 73resulting companysection 42section 47

Judgments citing CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu

AMIT KUMAR SEN,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

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

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…arbitrarily. Assessments must be based on material evidence. The addition of Rs.56,55,790/- in this case appears to be an arbitrary exercise of power, as it lacks any material basis or proper inquiry into the actual facts. 6. CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC): • The Supreme Court held that assessments cannot be based on presumptions or assumptions and must be substantiated with clear, cogent evidence. The Ld. Assessing Officer's assumption that the discrepancy in closing stock indicates unreported income is purely presumptive, making the addition legally unsustainable under this ruling. 7. No Basi…

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 308/HYD/2024[AY-2020-2]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 40A(9)

…ecisions. We, accordingly, answer question No. 4 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 2. Mr. Bajoria further relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court being respectively the decision in CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 and CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 134 (SC). In A. Gajapathy Naidu (supra ) on the question of power of the ITO to relate back an income the apex Court was of the following view: "When an ITO proceeds to include a particular income in the assessment, he should ask himself, inter alia, two questions, namely : (i) what…

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD, KOTHAGUDEM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 300/HYD/2024[2015--16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 40A(9)

…ecisions. We, accordingly, answer question No. 4 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 2. Mr. Bajoria further relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court being respectively the decision in CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 and CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 134 (SC). In A. Gajapathy Naidu (supra ) on the question of power of the ITO to relate back an income the apex Court was of the following view: "When an ITO proceeds to include a particular income in the assessment, he should ask himself, inter alia, two questions, namely : (i) what…

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 284/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 40A(9)

…ecisions. We, accordingly, answer question No. 4 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 2. Mr. Bajoria further relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court being respectively the decision in CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 and CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 134 (SC). In A. Gajapathy Naidu (supra ) on the question of power of the ITO to relate back an income the apex Court was of the following view: "When an ITO proceeds to include a particular income in the assessment, he should ask himself, inter alia, two questions, namely : (i) what…

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 283/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 40A(9)

…ecisions. We, accordingly, answer question No. 4 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 2. Mr. Bajoria further relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court being respectively the decision in CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 and CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 134 (SC). In A. Gajapathy Naidu (supra ) on the question of power of the ITO to relate back an income the apex Court was of the following view: "When an ITO proceeds to include a particular income in the assessment, he should ask himself, inter alia, two questions, namely : (i) what…

ACIT, CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INVEST CORP., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

ITA 2454/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…during the year, brought it to tax. Reliance is placed by it on Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC); State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102/24 Taxman 337 (SC); and CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 (SC).” [Underline supplied by us] 69. Therefore, only issue before the Coordinate bench in that case was in which year the income accrues. It was not the issue before the coordinate bench that whether the money received by the assessee as an option price is a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. In the facts of case relied up on before us, both t…

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

ITA 2447/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…during the year, brought it to tax. Reliance is placed by it on Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC); State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102/24 Taxman 337 (SC); and CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 (SC).” [Underline supplied by us] 69. Therefore, only issue before the Coordinate bench in that case was in which year the income accrues. It was not the issue before the coordinate bench that whether the money received by the assessee as an option price is a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. In the facts of case relied up on before us, both t…

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…d Co. [1965] 55 I'TR 660 (SC) 24 6 CIT v. Patuck (1969) 71 [TR 713 (Bom) 10 7 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) 5 8 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) CIT vs. 5 Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 9 CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu 53 ITR 114(SC) CIT vs. 5 Ahmedbhai Umarbhay & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC) 10 CIT vs. Ahmedbhai Umarbhay & Co. 18 ITR 472 (SC) 5 11 CIT vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corpn.253 ITR 303 (Punj. & 5 Har.) 12 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co., 106 ITR 884 (Bom.) 23 P a g e 4 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 13 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chetnavis (SM) AIR 1932 1 PC 178 14 DCIT…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, KOLKATA - II vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. L

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA/331/2008HC Calcutta01 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 1St May 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Smt. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2.

Section 43BSection 43D

…nsation and it was held that such interest accrued on year to year basis. In the instant case, there was no accrual since the interest was neither due nor receivable until maturity. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A.Gajapathy Naidu, (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC) sought to be relied upon on behalf of the revenue actually supports the plea of the assessee in its contention that interest income is taxable only upon maturity when the right to receive interest accrued to the assessee. In Laxmipat Singhania v CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC), relied upon on behalf of the revenue it was held that where the amoun…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA/1/2018HC Calcutta01 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 1St May 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Smt. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2.

Section 43BSection 43D

…nsation and it was held that such interest accrued on year to year basis. In the instant case, there was no accrual since the interest was neither due nor receivable until maturity. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A.Gajapathy Naidu, (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC) sought to be relied upon on behalf of the revenue actually supports the plea of the assessee in its contention that interest income is taxable only upon maturity when the right to receive interest accrued to the assessee. In Laxmipat Singhania v CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC), relied upon on behalf of the revenue it was held that where the amoun…

MSK PROJECT (INDIA) JV LTD. CO.(MERGED WITH MADHAV INFRA PROJECT LTD),VADODARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Vs. (Merged With Madhav Infra Acit, Projects Ltd), Circle-4, 4, Madhav House, Near Baroda Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 09.08.2012 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts To Hold That No Appeal Lies Against Order Giving Effect To Findings Of Cit In Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Dismissing Appeal Challenging Addition Of Rs.9,90,00,052/- Whereas Supreme Court Awarding Rs. 26.34 Lakhs

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

…d that the assessment order was erroneous .Since the AO had failed to make necessary inquiries relating to the issue, he directed the AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gajapathy Naidu, 53 ITR 114 (SC) wherein, he noted that, it was held that in mercantile accounting system when the right to receive accrued to the assessee it ought to be included in his income for that year. His findings in this regard at paragraph No.5 of his order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 25.02.2010 is as under:- “5. Under the circumstances, the assessing officer…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 2(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 92/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Sahakari Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaaj0607P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263(1)

…to the assessee in definite terms, therefore, there was no justification for it to have kept the recognizing of the same in abeyance. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu (1964) 53 ITR 114(SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid order had observed as under: “The problem raised before us can only be answered on the true meaning of the express words used in s. 4 (1)(b)(i) of the Act. It reads: - "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of any person includes all income, profits and gains from…

SANDHU BUILDERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2002/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sandhu Builders, Acit-19(3), Sandhu Palace, 41, Pali Hill, Matru Mandir Tardeo, Bandra (W), Vs. Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaxfs 4480 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. Desai Revenue By : Mr. Vinay Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. DesaiFor Respondent: Mr. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ve mentioned in “..4.1 In the reasons for the decision, we have mentioned in “..4.1 In the reasons for the decision, we have mentioned in the impugned order that in CIT v. A. the impugned order that in CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu, (1964) Gajapathy Naidu, (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC), it is held that income is taxable when it 53 ITR 114 (SC), it is held that income is taxable when it 53 ITR 114 (SC), it is held that income is taxable when it accrues or is earned, if the assessee's accounts are accrues or is earned, if the assessee's accounts are accrues or is earned, if the assessee's accounts are maintained on the mercan…

SANDHU BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2001/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sandhu Builders, Acit-19(3), Sandhu Palace, 41, Pali Hill, Matru Mandir Tardeo, Bandra (W), Vs. Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaxfs 4480 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. Desai Revenue By : Mr. Vinay Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. DesaiFor Respondent: Mr. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ve mentioned in “..4.1 In the reasons for the decision, we have mentioned in “..4.1 In the reasons for the decision, we have mentioned in the impugned order that in CIT v. A. the impugned order that in CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu, (1964) Gajapathy Naidu, (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC), it is held that income is taxable when it 53 ITR 114 (SC), it is held that income is taxable when it 53 ITR 114 (SC), it is held that income is taxable when it accrues or is earned, if the assessee's accounts are accrues or is earned, if the assessee's accounts are accrues or is earned, if the assessee's accounts are maintained on the mercan…

SANDHU BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2000/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sandhu Builders, Acit-19(3), Sandhu Palace, 41, Pali Hill, Matru Mandir Tardeo, Bandra (W), Vs. Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaxfs 4480 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. Desai Revenue By : Mr. Vinay Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. DesaiFor Respondent: Mr. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ve mentioned in “..4.1 In the reasons for the decision, we have mentioned in “..4.1 In the reasons for the decision, we have mentioned in the impugned order that in CIT v. A. the impugned order that in CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu, (1964) Gajapathy Naidu, (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC), it is held that income is taxable when it 53 ITR 114 (SC), it is held that income is taxable when it 53 ITR 114 (SC), it is held that income is taxable when it accrues or is earned, if the assessee's accounts are accrues or is earned, if the assessee's accounts are accrues or is earned, if the assessee's accounts are maintained on the mercan…

DAICEL CHIRAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 87/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Daicel Chiral Vs. 1. Deputy Technologies India Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle Medchal, 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2. National Faceless Pan : Aaccd8423B. Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Pradeep Revenue By: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri N. PradeepFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…201 ITR 866 874(SC). Income is taxable when it accuses or is earned , if the assessee's accounts are maintained on the mercantile basis, it is taxable when it is received, if the assessee's accounts are maintained on cash basis —CIT-V A Gajapaty Naidu( 1964) 53 ITR 114(SC) This facts is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs Planters Co P Limited ( 1980) 123 ITR 648 650-51( Mad) income is liable to be taxed on the basis of accruing or arising to the assessee, or its receipts by the assessee, during the relevant previous year. The accrual or arising of income is generally dependent o…

M/S M/S BAGADIYA BROTHERS PVT.LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-2(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 37/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 37/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 37/RPR/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AABCB8934G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri G.S.Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of P…

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 3307/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ecisions. We, accordingly, answer question No. 4 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 4. Mr. Bajoria further relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court being respectively the decision in CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 and CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 134 (SC). In A. Gajapathy Naidu (supra ) on the question of power of the ITO to relate back an income the apex Court was of the following view: "When an ITO proceeds to include a particular income in the assessment, he should ask himself, inter alia, two questions, namely : (i) what…

AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed

ITA 2428/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ecisions. We, accordingly, answer question No. 4 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 4. Mr. Bajoria further relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court being respectively the decision in CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 and CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 134 (SC). In A. Gajapathy Naidu (supra ) on the question of power of the ITO to relate back an income the apex Court was of the following view: "When an ITO proceeds to include a particular income in the assessment, he should ask himself, inter alia, two questions, namely : (i) what…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS CHHATTISGARH CAPTIVE COAL MINING LIMITED, RAIPUR

ITA 6/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Captive Coal Mining Ltd. J-10, Near Tv Tower, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7481N ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Amit M Jain, Advocate Revenue By :Shri P.K Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35D

…n off during the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 2002-03 since the proposed project was abandoned?" The Hon’ble High Court after, inter alia, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gajapathy Naidu (1964) 53 ITR 114(SC) held, that as there would be no occasion to claim the deduction of the work-in-progress because the project was abandoned and the capital work-in-progress would not proceed any further and see the light of the day, therefore, the expenditure therein incurred was to be allowed as a deduction in the year in which the decision of abandonment of t…

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu (53 ITR 114) — Cited in 73 Judgments | BharatTax