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 44Supreme Court of India1991#447 most cited

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.

204

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. · 188 ITR 44 · Section 145 · Section 144 · Assessing Officer duty · method of accounting · books of account scrutiny · true income · assessment year distinct · valuation methods · SC 1991

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 115JB Section 153A Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc written down value section 145 section 40(a)(i)interest u/s 234b profits and gains of business or profession section 145(3)section 127 section 115j advance tax book profits penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.

M/S. Gl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 153ASection 292CSection 37Section 69Section 92C

…t order, it is clear that there were various discrepancies in the books of accounts as noticed by the learned assessing officer. The learned dispute resolution panel also relied upon the decision of honourable Supreme Court in case of British paints India Ltd 188 ITR 44 and held that the assessee‟s books of accounts are not reliable at all and therefore this books of accounts held to be rejected under section 145 (3) of the income tax act. Therefore it directed the learned assessing officer to invoke provisions of section 145 (3) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment was to be completed in the manner provided…

Arjav Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3035/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, ArFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…s been adversely impacted. As such. the aforesaid amounts are required to be considered for purposes of determination of the total income of the assessee. This view also gets support from the decision of Apex Court in the case of M/s British Paint reported in 188 ITR 44. wherein it has been held that it is not necessary that the accounting standards and income tax provision should march hand in hand and that the A.O. is required to adopt the method of accounting which will represent true, correct and fair profit of the business. In view of the same when there is actual payment on account of foreign exchange wheth…

Ketan Sureshchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT - 17(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2858/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.2858 To 2860/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15) Ketan Sureshchandra Mehta Jcit 17(2) C-111, Karmakshetara, Room No.123-A, Sss Nagar, Antop Hill, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Koliwada, Sion (East), Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 037 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Abdpm3885F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh B. Gupte, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…that he had consistently been valuing its inventory by following the aforesaid method did not merit acceptance. The A.O while concluding as hereinabove relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC). On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O was of the view that the method of accounting being followed by an assessee could be disturbed, if it is found that the income cannot be correctly determined on the basis of accounting policy adopted by the assessee. Apart there from, the A.O P a g e | 4 ITA Nos.2858 to 2860/Mum/2018 AYs.…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paragon Xt, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 194C

…fied to this extent. Now the next question arises here is that how much is the income of the appellant and in what way it can be worked out. 5.6 The next question is quantification of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44 has held as under: "What is the profit of a trade or business is a question of fact and it must be ascertained, as all facts must be ascertained, with reference to the relevant evidence, and not on doctrines or theories: "no assumption need be made unless the facts cannot be ascertained, and then only to the extent to which they cannot be ascertai…

Smt. Nilam Jain, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Alwar

In the result, we set-aside the matter to the

ITA 903/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anuradha (JCIT)

Section 145(3)Section 68

…sold for Rs.7.72 per bag whereas it was purchased for Rs.15.20 per bag and the opening stock was taken at Rs.12 per bag. Accordingly, he held that the provisions of Section 145(3) are applicable and relied on the decision of British Paints India Limited (SC) 188 ITR 44 and made lump sum trading addition of Rs.3 lakhs. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) stated that the AO is justified in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act However, the addition of Rs.3 lakhs on lump sum basis is not justifiable. He held that as some of cash purchases are not supported by evidence and the valuation of bardana is not corre…

M/S. Lexmark International (India) Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 14(1), Kolkata

ITA 1208/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…xmark International (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT/ACIT Cirl. 14(1) Kol. Page 9 database at the time of preparation of the Transfer Pricing Report. While saying so, the Ld TPO has relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. British Paints India Ltd [1991 AIR 1338] [188 ITR 44] [1990 SCR Supl. (3) 525] wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is not only the right but the duty of the Assessing Officer to act in exercise of his statutory powers, for determining what in his opinion is the correct taxable income. the Ld AO has also relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT for furthering the view that the cu…

ACIT, Circle-14(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Lexmark International India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 89/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

M/S. Lexmark International (India) Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1), Kolkata

ITA 391/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

ACIT Cir-1, Jamshedpur vs. M/S Autoprofile Ltd, Jamshedpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 174/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…v) Ram Chandra Singh Ramnik Lal vs. CIT (Pat) 42 ITR 780 v) Bhai Sunder Das Sarkar Singh (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Del) 42 ITR 780 vi) Royal Medical Hall vs. CIT (AP) 46 ITR 748 3.10 It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. British Paints Limited (SC) 188 ITR 44 that “if method of accounting, even though consistently followed, does not disclose true and proper income, is entitled to adopt appropriate computation to determine true income”. Since, the assessee has not only been engaged in concealing generation of scraps as established in para 3.5 supra but is also engaged in under billing w.r.t. sale of scr…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 6151/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…d hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Kikabhai Premchand v/s CIT 24 ITR 506 (SC), ITO v/s Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC), CIT v/s British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (SC) and CIT v/s Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. The profits made; and the liabilities or losses made before or after the releva…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 5705/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Omnia Appliances Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3775/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Omnia Appliances Pvt. Ltd, Circle-19(1), 552, Katra Asharfi, Chandi New Delhi Chowk, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco8275E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 145Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Vs. Omnia Appliances Pvt. Ltd, Circle-19(1), 552, Katra Asharfi, Chandi New Delhi Chowk, New Delhi PAN: AAACO8275E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Smt Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Ashish Goel, CA Date of Hearing 13/09/2018 Date of pronouncement 10/12/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-7, New Delhi dated 03.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The revenu…

Km. Preeti Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Noida

ITA 6909/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

…nd self-contained period. Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. We take strength from decisions reported at Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT 24 ITR 506(SC); ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC); CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44(SC) and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC) for the proposition that each 'previous year' is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment and further, that the profits made; and the liabilities of losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year; unless in accordanc…

M/S Subash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 739/ASR/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…und not verifiable. The assessee’s accounts, being regarded as not correct or complete, the Assessing Officer (AO) disregarded the assessee’s trading results of the pipe business, relying on the decisions in, inter alia, CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.[1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC); Investment Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 533 (SC); S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC); Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 13 (Bom); Ghanshyamdas Permanand v. CIT [1952] 21 ITR 79 (Nag.); and Ratanlal Omprakash v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR (AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11) Subhash Chander Aggarwal v. Asstt. CIT 640 (Ori). – a…

M/S. Sbash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Range -II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 738/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. India Pistons Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2617/CHNY/2017[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2617/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1999-2000 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. India Piston Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. Huzur Gardens, Sembiam, Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Chennai 600 011. Block, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 34. [Pan: Aaaci1439E] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 23.08.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 1999-2000. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards The Element Of Excise Duty & Customs Duty In The Closing Stock.

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…duty liabilities by way of notes under balance sheet. The contingent liability was not debited to profit and loss account. Since the customs duty and excise duty are includible in closing stock in view of the decision in the case of CIT v. British Paints Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (SC), the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹.1,17,43,000/- and brought to tax. 3 I.T.A. No. 2617/Chny/17 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions and by following the decision in the case of CIT v. English Electrical Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 512 (Mad) and other decisions of the Tribunal…

The DCIT, Circle-2, Surat vs. Maruti Hardware, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 148/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.148/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Maruti Hardware, Income Tax, 1-2, Thakor Baug, Circle – 2, Surat. New Civil Road, Near Kapadia Health Club, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aaefm 1969 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O.No.63/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 Maruti Hardware, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1-2, Thakor Baug, Income Tax, New Civil Road, Near Range– 2, Surat 395 001. Kapadia Health Club, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aaefm 1969 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rajesh Upadhyay – Itp िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri R.P.Rastogi – Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 10.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Ii, Surat(In Short

Section 142(3)Section 143(3)

…cted. However, the AO was of the view that the assessee has sold goods on the rate reflected in the PIs and showed the lower mark up, therefore, books of accounts are not reliable, hence, relying on the ratio laid down in the case of British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44(SS) rejected the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 142(3) of the Act and accordingly estimated Gross Profit Rate at 20% as against 11.82 % shown by the assessee for the period from the date of survey to 31.03.2009 which resulted in an addition of Rs.53,27,910/- to the income shown by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the ass…

Modern Agencies, Jhansi vs. ACIT Circle-6, Jhansi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 438/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Section 145(3)

…rtion in the earlier adopted method of valuation of stock, hence the action of the AO is wrong. 3.2 It is emphasized here that the valuation of stock is very important and the Supreme Court of India long back in the case of CIT v. British Paints India Limited 188 ITR 44 opined that the importance of the stock valuation is to find out the correct determination of the profits or loss of the business enterprise. The appellant submits that the valuation of the stock since was based on erroneous method of valuation and therefore, the addition made on the basis of such valuation is neither justified nor lawful, so to b…

Apne Aap Women Worlwide (India) Trust, Kolkatta vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7373/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7373/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Apne Aap Women Worldwide (India) Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(1) बनाम/ 1, Sashitala Road, Kidderpore Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Kolkata-700 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaata-8473-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.Dr : Shashi Tulsiyan, Ld. Ar Assessee By सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

…13 ITR 24], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where question of law is involved, the rule of consistency will not prevail. Similar observations were made by Hon’ble apex court in 313 ITR 363; 307 ITR 338; 300 ITR. Further, in the case of British Paints [188 ITR 44], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be estoppel against the law. Similar view was held that there cannot be estoppel against the law. Similar view was held in the cases of Luchi Ram Puranmal [177 CTR 640 (MP)]; Foss Electric 263 ITR 125] and Distributors of Baroda [118 ITR 243]. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CWT vs. Meattles (…

Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A), Sh. Abhishek Mukherjee (C.A)For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 143(3)

…s account. The Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT: 24 ITR 48, approved the valuation of closing stock lower of cost or market price. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. : 188 ITR 44 wherein the Court laid down principles for valuation of stock as under: "It is a well recognized principle of commercial accounting to enter in the profit and loss account the value of the stock-in-trade at the beginning and at the end of the accounting year at cost or market price, whichever is the lower. Where the market value has fallen befor…