What is CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer has a duty to examine whether an assessee's books of account truly disclose the correct income and is not bound to accept the accounting system regularly employed by the assessee or methods followed in earlier years. Each assessment year is a distinct and self-contained unit for tax purposes.

How many judgments cite CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.?

204 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 145(3), Section 271(1)(c), Section 37(1), Section 115JB.

CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44)

Siddharth Developers, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 707/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesiddharth Developers V. Acit – Central Circle – 5(3) 205 Commerce House Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor 140 N.M. Road, Fort Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400023 Pan: Abffs4068J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Salil Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ctly arrived at relying from the books. Accordingly, CIT(Appeals) has upheld the action of AO in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the cost of project. Legal Position 1) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs British Paints India Ltd (1991) (188 ITR 44) (SC) has held that it is not only the right but the duty of the Assessing Officer to consider whether or not the books disclose the true state of accounts and the correct income can be deducted therefrom. It is incorrect to say that the officer is bound to accept the system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, the correctness of whic…

Pramod N. Prajapati, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed as income of A.Y. 1998-1999 though said income was disclosed in V.D.I.S. 1997 being cash of A.Y. 1991-1992 to 1997-1998 and is therefore assessable as income of respective Assessment year and not as income of A.Y. 1998-1999 as held in CIT Vs British Paints 188 ITR 44 (SC) which lays down principle that each previous year is distinct unit of time for the purpose of assessment and the profit made or the liabilities or losses incurred before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing profit of that year. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings are not continuation of a…

Hajarimal Mishrimal Bafana vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 175 & 176/JAB/2016 (Asst. Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Hajarimal Mishrimal Bafna, vs. Addl. CIT Range, Tar Bazar, Shastri Bazar, Chhindwara (M.P.) Pandhurna, Chhindwara (M.P.) [PAN : AACHH2050R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR Date of hearing : 12/10/2022 Date of pronouncement : 29/11/2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of two appeals by the Assessee, agitating the adjudication…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…he decision of British Paints (supra) more so when the jurisdictional High Court has approved project completion method and consequently, the method adopted by the revenue is unsustainable in law. 16.23 The decision of CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC) referred to by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not relevant to the facts of the assessee's case. The CIT(A) has without any rational basis made an attempt to distinguish the cases at Para 4.15 of the order. In the case of British Paints is not at all applicable to the facts of our case and the facts of British Paints is to…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…he decision of British Paints (supra) more so when the jurisdictional High Court has approved project completion method and consequently, the method adopted by the revenue is unsustainable in law. 16.23 The decision of CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC) referred to by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not relevant to the facts of the assessee's case. The CIT(A) has without any rational basis made an attempt to distinguish the cases at Para 4.15 of the order. In the case of British Paints is not at all applicable to the facts of our case and the facts of British Paints is to…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…he decision of British Paints (supra) more so when the jurisdictional High Court has approved project completion method and consequently, the method adopted by the revenue is unsustainable in law. 16.23 The decision of CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC) referred to by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not relevant to the facts of the assessee's case. The CIT(A) has without any rational basis made an attempt to distinguish the cases at Para 4.15 of the order. In the case of British Paints is not at all applicable to the facts of our case and the facts of British Paints is to…

ITO-33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Vikram Baijnath Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…od considering period as daily one, without any reason. It was wrong on their part to disturb the method of accounting regularly employed by assessee. 21. The method followed by the assessee is recognized by the Apex Court in CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 45 (SC) pages 51 & 52 22. Assessee is consistently following the method since number of years. ACIT vs. Jagdish Chand Prop. (2004) 2 SOT 112 (Chd.) Weighted average cost method for valuation of closing stock adopted by assessee goldsmith is correct and addition made on account of enhancement ofvalue of closing stock by Assessing officer by holding su…

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

…tcomings/defects in the books of accounts such as unverifiable claim of expenses debited in the trading and P&L account. The AO has also relied on the cases of Basti Ram Narayan Das Maheshwari V/s CIT (210 ITR 438) and CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. (1990) 188 ITR 44 to emphasize that non-maintenance of day-to-day stock register can lead to rejection of books of accounts as per provisions of Section 145 of the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of Rainbow Metals (India) — reported in 83 Taxman 160 — can also be applied wherein it was held that where there was no quantitative tally of opening stock and…

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 900/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

…tcomings/defects in the books of accounts such as unverifiable claim of expenses debited in the trading and P&L account. The AO has also relied on the cases of Basti Ram Narayan Das Maheshwari V/s CIT (210 ITR 438) and CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. (1990) 188 ITR 44 to emphasize that non-maintenance of day-to-day stock register can lead to rejection of books of accounts as per provisions of Section 145 of the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of Rainbow Metals (India) — reported in 83 Taxman 160 — can also be applied wherein it was held that where there was no quantitative tally of opening stock and…

Kumar Urban Development P Ltd (Pune Mumbai Realty P Ltd Merged With River View Properties Pvt.Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development P Ltd), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 357/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…or the year. In other words, the value of advance given for purchase of land was never claimed as deduction. There is no bar under law to correct the state of affairs to real picture. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd., 188 ITR 44 (SC) held that there is no estoppel on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow the method in the earlier years and further held that it is not only the right but duty of the Assessing Officer to consider whether or not books of account disclosed true state of accounts and correct income can be deduced therefrom. Therefore, the action of the As…

Kumar Urban Development P Ltd (Pune Mumbai Realty P Ltd Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd Merged With Kumar Urban Development P Ltd), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1323/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…or the year. In other words, the value of advance given for purchase of land was never claimed as deduction. There is no bar under law to correct the state of affairs to real picture. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd., 188 ITR 44 (SC) held that there is no estoppel on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow the method in the earlier years and further held that it is not only the right but duty of the Assessing Officer to consider whether or not books of account disclosed true state of accounts and correct income can be deduced therefrom. Therefore, the action of the As…