CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd.

89 ITR 266Supreme Court of India1973#1377 most cited

What is CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that income tax is levied on real income, not on hypothetical or notional accrual. For income to be taxable, it must genuinely accrue or be received, taking into account the realistic probability of its realization.

83

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. · 89 ITR 266 · real income theory · hypothetical income · notional income · real accrual of income · taxability of income · probability of realization · Section 28 income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145Section 145(2)Section 145A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 28(iv)right to receivesurrender of incomemercantile system of accountingloose paperssection 28section 234aincome-tax officersection 133asection 131section 115bbesection 139(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2782/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…of Rs. Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the subs…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2651/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…of Rs. Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the subs…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2650/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…of Rs. Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the subs…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2649/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…of Rs. Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the subs…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2648/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…of Rs. Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the subs…

DCIT 1(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Elctricity Board, Mumbai

ITA 3559/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3559/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri H. N. Sinha, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3559/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2006-07) DCIT 1(2) Maharashtra State R. No. 535, 5th Floor, Electricity Board, बिधम/ 6th floor, Prakash Ganga Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Plot No. C-19, E Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 & Cross Objection No. 160/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) MSEB Holding Company DCIT 1(2) R. No. 535, 5th Floor, Ltd. बिधम/ ( on behalf of Maharashtra Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. State Electricity Bo…

ACIT, Cir.-1(2), Pune vs. Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 351/PUN/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the following decision which are factually distinguishable, i) Dhun Kapadia 63 ITR 651(SC) ii) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102(SC) iii) Birla Gawlior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266 (SC) iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. reported in 222 ITR 583. 5. The order of the CIT(A)…

M/S. Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, WD.-3(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 722/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the following decision which are factually distinguishable, i) Dhun Kapadia 63 ITR 651(SC) ii) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102(SC) iii) Birla Gawlior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266 (SC) iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. reported in 222 ITR 583. 5. The order of the CIT(A)…

DCIT, Cir.-1(1), Pune vs. Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 624/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the following decision which are factually distinguishable, i) Dhun Kapadia 63 ITR 651(SC) ii) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102(SC) iii) Birla Gawlior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266 (SC) iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. reported in 222 ITR 583. 5. The order of the CIT(A)…

DCIT, Cir.-1(1), Pune vs. Mantri Housing & Constructions Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2004[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the following decision which are factually distinguishable, i) Dhun Kapadia 63 ITR 651(SC) ii) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102(SC) iii) Birla Gawlior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266 (SC) iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. reported in 222 ITR 583. 5. The order of the CIT(A)…

ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S White Cliff Properties (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1511/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 251

…ourt which affirms that principle. Reference may be made to Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Bai Shirinbai Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86 (SC), Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) and Batna Textiles vs. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Ker).” 22. In this case, it cannot be said that the right to receive accrued, before the start of construction and before the happening of certain contingencies and fulfilment of conditions stipulated in the agreement. Hence, the consideration in question neither was received nor accrued in the impu…

M/S Canara Housing Development Company, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…he concept/rule of taxing the real income and not merely on the basis of book entries has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following decisions: i) CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) ii) CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) iii) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1998) 225 ITR 746 (SC) The Hon’ble Supreme Court again in case of Sutlej Cotton Mills v. CIT 116 ITR 1 held that the entries in the books of accounts are not conclusive of matter if the same are not in conformity with the accounting principles. What is required is the true nature of the transaction…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deloitte & Touche Consulting Inida P. Ltdervice India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4136/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K.Pradhan

Section 260Section 28

…to recover the consumption charge in dispute at the enhanced rate from the consumers. 24. This Court did not accept the view taken by the High Court on facts. Reference was made in this context to Commissioner of Income Tax v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd., [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) wherein it was held, after referring to Morvi Industries that real accrual of income and not a hypothetical accrual of income ought to be taken into consideration. For a similar conclusion, reference was made to Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) wherein it was held that income tax is a tax on…

I.T.O.WD-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 2270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income-Tax Officer, Wd-1(4), Kolkata. Vs. Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (Pan: Aaccb3287F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, CA & Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…] 24 ITR 481 (SC) and CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd [1972 ] 83 ITR 211 (SC). Thirdly, it is a settled principle of income-tax law that it is the real income, which is taxable under the Act. This proposition was enunciated in CITv. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd [1973J 89 ITR 266 (SC), which was pronounced in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and CO. [1962J 46 ITR 144 (Se)." 9. Further more, along with the assessee, one M/s. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., one of the partners of M/S.Salarpuria Soft Zone also faced the same situation of reassessment under section 147 of the Act. They have challenged the order under section 147 of th…

S. Mansukhlal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4793/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4793/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. S. Mansukhlal & Co., The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Srbc & Associates Llp, Of Income Tax –14(2), V. Chartered Accountants, Earnest House, Iii Floor, 12 Th Floor, The Ruby, Nariman Point, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 021. Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahfs9459A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…essee had a legal right to recover the consumption charge in dispute at the enhanced rate from the consumers. 24. This Court did not accept the view taken by the High Court on facts. Reference was made in this context to CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) wherein it was held, after referring to Morvi Industries that real accrual of income and not a hypothetical accrual of income ought to be taken into consideration. For a similar conclusion, reference was made to Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) wherein it was held that income tax is a tax on real income. 25. Fina…

I.T.O WD - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Orchid Griha Nirman, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2269/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2269/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward-1(4) -Vs.- M/S. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaco 7148 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Angam Shaiza, Cit For The Respondent : (I) Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate (Ii)Shri S.Jhajharia, Fca (Iii) Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Angam Shaiza, CITFor Respondent: (i) Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…] 24 ITR 481 (SC) and CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd [1972 ] 83 ITR 211 (SC). Thirdly, it is a settled principle of income-tax law that it is the real income, which is taxable under the Act. This proposition was enunciated in CITv. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd [1973J 89 ITR 266 (SC), which was pronounced in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and CO. [1962J 46 ITR 144 (Se)." It was argued that the above observations with reference to valuation of stock at market value higher than cost are equally applicable in respect of any other asset. 20. It was submitted that revaluation by the said firm was made for financial purposes and n…

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, four appeals of the assessee for AY: 2006-07 & 2008-

ITA 868/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, CAFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT
Section 201Section 201(1)

…4(Bang)2015 no TDS should be deducted. He also submitted that reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements; i) E.D Sason & Co., Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 27(SC) ii)Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co Vs CIT 46 ITR 144(SC) iii) CIT Vs Birla Gwalior Pvt.Ltd 89 ITR 266(SC) iv) CIT Vs WExcel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295(SC) v) State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT 158 ITR 102(SC) vi) Morvi Industries Ltd., Vs CIT 82 ITR 835 (SC) vii) Godhara Electricity Co.Ltd.,CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) viii) M/s P.G & W.Sawoo Pv.Ltd., Vs ACIT in Civil appeal No.4091 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.6384 of 2009 dated 19/04/2016. Reli…

Mill Consultants & Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2792/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2792/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mili Consultants & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 6th Floor, 638 Aaykar Bhavan, 204, Shreepal Complex, Suren Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACM 6095 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by…

Sh. Harpreet Singh Puniani, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4228/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2010-11 Harpreet Singh Puniani, Vs. Principal Cit, Prop. M/S. Broadband Technologies, Xvi, 84-B, Old Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi. Delhi. (Pan: Aaipp2364E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manoj Kumar Mittal, Adv. Department By: Shri A.K. Saroha, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned The Revisional Order Passed Under Sec. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Several Grounds Involving The Sole Issue Regarding The Validity Of The Order Passed Under Sec. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Also Moved Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Late By 15 Days. It Has Been Explained That The Assessee Had Engaged Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Learned Ca To Represent Its Case Before The Learned Cit Against The Show-Cause Notice Issued Under Sec. 263

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT( DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 263

…sing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings supported with the documents. Again, a detailed reply to the show-cause notice was submitted before the Learned CIT. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Electric Supply Co. Ltd., vs. CIT - 89 ITR 266; ii) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. - 57 ITR 521; iii) CIT vs. Excel Ind. Ltd. (SC) - 358 ITR 295; 7 iv ) CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals P. Ltd. - 317 ITR 249 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) - 320 ITR 674 (Del.); & vi) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - 332 ITR 167 (Del.) 8. Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand tried to justify the revisional or…

ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai vs. L/H of Smt. Vimla Ratilal Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 3361/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3361/Mum/14 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer-16 Shri Ashok Mehta, L/H Of (L) Smt. Vimla Ratilal (1)(3) Vs. Mehta, 201, Jeevan Villa, Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, N Dhabholkar Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400006 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 69

…to recover the consumption charge in dispute at the enhanced rate from the consumers. 24. This Court did not accept the view taken by the High Court on facts. Reference was made in this context to Commissioner of Income Tax v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd., [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) wherein it was held, after referring to Morvi Industries that real accrual of income and not a hypothetical accrual of income ought to be taken into consideration. For a similar conclusion, reference was made to Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income 22 Tax, [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) wherein it was held that income tax is a ta…