CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd.

214 ITR 583High Court1995#2079 most cited

What is CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. authority for?

When a sum is credited on account of share capital or share premium, the assessee must establish the existence, identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants, going beyond mere submission of documents. The Assessing Officer has the power to investigate and lift the corporate veil to ascertain the bonafides of such transactions.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Active Traders · 214 ITR 583 · Section 68 · share application money · share capital and share premium · identity genuineness creditworthiness · burden of proof assessee · unexplained cash credit · corporate veil lifting · paper company · entry operator · AO power to investigate

Also reported as

69 Taxmann 281

Issues it is cited on

section 31paper companysection 251(2)share capital and share premiumsource of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsection 251(1)(a)live linkadmission of additional evidenceentry operatorshare application moneyaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd.

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…xxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.8. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee are concerned, we find that these cases may not help the assessee as the…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) xx. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shaha vs. CIT 213 ITR 803 (Bom) a. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC) xxi. VIP (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 265 ITR 202 (MP) xxii. CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del) xxiii. CIT vs. Active Traders (P) Ltd. 214 ITR 583 (Cal) xxiv. CIT vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. 263 ITR 623 (Cal) xxv. CIT vs. Bhagwati Jewels Ltd. 201 ITR 461 (Del) xxvi. CIT vs. Prateek Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. 215 ITR 272 (Del) xxvii. Shankar Industries vs. CIT 114 ITR 689 (Cal) xxviii. Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT 140 ITR 151(All) xxix. Hari Chand Virender Paul vs. CIT 140 ITR…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…xxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.5. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee like Shri Narayan Tatu Rane vs Income Tax Officer (ITA NO.2690/Mum/2016)…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…xxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.7. So far as, the cases in favour of the assessee, like CIT vs Nirav Modi (2016) 71 taxman.com 272 (Bom.) is concerned, the…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…xxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.7. So far as, the cases in favour of the assessee, like CIT vs Nirav Modi (2016) 71 taxman.com 272 (Bom.) is concerned, the…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…xxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.7. So far as, the cases in favour of the assessee, like CIT vs Nirav Modi (2016) 71 taxman.com 272 (Bom.) is concerned, the…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…xxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.6. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee like CIT vs Nirav Modi (2016) 71 taxman.com 272 (Bom.) is concerned, the…

Shri Prabhat Kumar Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 2382/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…prejudicial to the Revenue and relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Court cited as Commissioner 6 ITA No.2382/Del./2016 of Income Tax vs. Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H) and Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Active Traders Pvt. Limited 214 ITR 583. 7. From the arguments addressed by the parties to the present appeal, orders passed by the authorities below and case law relied upon, the first question arises for determination in this case is :- “as to whether the assessment order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue confe…

ACIT, Bulandshahr vs. M/S Rama Dairy Products Ltd, Bulandshahr

In the result ground no.2 is dismissed

ITA 4509/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. & Shri Kuldip Singh, J.M. Ita No: 4492/Del/2010 Assessment Year 2005-06 Rama Dairy Products Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle Bulandshahr Siyana Road Bulandshahr Bulandshahr Pan: Aaacr 9937 N

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 43B

…before the Assessing Officer? The amount has rightly been added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the light of the following judgements. CIT vs. Sophia Finance Limited(Del) 205 ITR 98 CIT vs. Active Traders P. Limited(Cal), 214 ITR 583 CIT vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd., (Cal) 263 ITR 623 CIT vs. Bhagwati Jewels Ltd.(Del.) 201 ITR 461 2. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in reducing the addition of Rs.3,06,45,632/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of low GP to Rs.5,21,513/- without appreciating the facts that the books of…

M/S Rama Dairy Products Ltd., Bulandshahr vs. DCIT, Bulandshahr

In the result ground no.2 is dismissed

ITA 4492/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. & Shri Kuldip Singh, J.M. Ita No: 4492/Del/2010 Assessment Year 2005-06 Rama Dairy Products Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle Bulandshahr Siyana Road Bulandshahr Bulandshahr Pan: Aaacr 9937 N

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 43B

…before the Assessing Officer? The amount has rightly been added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the light of the following judgements. CIT vs. Sophia Finance Limited(Del) 205 ITR 98 CIT vs. Active Traders P. Limited(Cal), 214 ITR 583 CIT vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd., (Cal) 263 ITR 623 CIT vs. Bhagwati Jewels Ltd.(Del.) 201 ITR 461 2. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in reducing the addition of Rs.3,06,45,632/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of low GP to Rs.5,21,513/- without appreciating the facts that the books of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Prakash Colour (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1176/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 1176/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Prakash Colour (P) Ltd., 15A, 2Nd Floor, Sri Nagar Colony, Ward-14(3), New Delhi Near Bharat Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp5463B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. Ashish Chadha & P. Srivastava, Cas Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 01.12.2010 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)

…examination of his statement, the matter can be restored to the AO. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ram Ratan Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All.) " CIT Vs Sophia Finance Ltd.(1994) 205 ITR 98 (Delhi) " CIT Vs Active Traders (P.) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 583 (Calcutta) " CIT Vs Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 623 (Calcutta) 22 Prakash Colour (P) Ltd. 10. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that entire addition was made by the AO on the basis of statement of some Mr. Tarun Goyal, recor…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar); CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj.); Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad.); CIT vs. Export House, Amritsar [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); PT. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All.); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CI…

M/S Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 806/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.806/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Prestige Garden Constructions P. Ltd, The Falcon House No.1, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aabcp2901E V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khindha, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, Cit Heard On : 25.05.2016 Pronounced On : 10.06.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khindha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Keyaram Hotels Ltd v. DCIT [ 373 ITR 494], that of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maithan International [375 ITR 123] and that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Active Traders P. Ltd [214 ITR 583]. 07. We have perused the materials and heard the rival contentions. Notice issued by the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings has been placed at paper book page 25 and 26. Page 26 brings out the details that were called from the assessee. This is extracted below for brevity : ITA.806/Bang/2015 Page - 9 08. Assessee had give…

Lakshya Seth, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and impugned notice

ITA 218/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gajanand Meena, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 69A

…w are not examined. In the instant case even the facts are not disclosed by the assessee in his return of income as regards maintenance of bank accounts and deposit of cash in the said bank accounts. 7. It has been held in CIT v. Active Traders (P) Ltd (1995) 214 ITR 583 (Cal) that the CIT can also regard an assessment order to be erroneous when on the circumstances of the case, he finds that it has been made in undue haste and without proper enquiry. It is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to investigate the facts stated in a return particularly when the circumstances suggest that the enquiry would have been ne…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 504 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92Section 92CSection 92D

…ettiar Vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 657 (mad; Addl. CIT Vs. Mukur Corporation (19978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj); Gee Vee Enterprises Vs.Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del);Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT Vs. Active Traders 9P) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. (No.1) Vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All.); CIT Vs. Rampiyari Khemka [1067] 63 ITR 367 (Cal.); Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 333 (Cal); CIT Vs. Kiran Debi Singhee [1967] 65 ITR 167 (MP); CIT Vs. Everest Cold Storage [1996] 220 ITR 241 (MP) and Duggal and Co. Vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR…