What is CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. authority for?

Income cannot be assessed on purely notional figures or mere suspicion; it must be based on actual evidence and supporting material demonstrating its accrual or receipt by the assessee. Assessments made without such evidence are bad-in-law.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.?

236 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 8), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 142(1), Section 153A.

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 8)

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…5) M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd., reasonableness. Therefore, expenditure incurred was allowed under section 37(1). 54. Further, reliance is placed on the following decisions in this regard:  SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co Ltd 91 ITR 8 (SC)  CIT vs Keshavial Chandulal 59 ITR 120 (Guj)  Flipkart India Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Bang)  Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008) (SC) dated 5 November 2015  Dresser-Rand India Private Limited (141 TTJ 385) (Mumbai ITAT) dated 7 September 2011  M/s. La Renon Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2380/Ahd/2015) (Ahmedabad ITAT) dated 23 Sept…

Shri Kamlesh J. Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1254/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1254/Ahd/2016 नि◌धा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Kamlesh J. Jhaveri, Income Tax Officer, B/201, Siddh Silla Apartment, Vs. Ward-10(1), B/H. Ekta Tower, Ahmedabad. Barage Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Aetpj5973L

For Appellant: Shri Asseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R

Section 145(3)

…f the Madras High Court in Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Lid. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad) and the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Raman & Company ' TR 11 (SC) observed at page 13 of [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC): “But the law does not oblige a trader to make the maximum pro fit that he can out of his trading transactions. Income which accrues to a trader taxable in his hands: income which he could have, but has not earned, is not made taxable as income accrued to him. By adopting a device, if it is made to appear that income which belonged to the asses…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3563/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-28, Room E-9, Panchsheel Park, No.317, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110017 Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Revenue Assessee Cross Objection No.277/Del/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3563/Del/2016) [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, E-9, Panchsheel Park, Central Circle-28, Room New Delhi-110017 No.317, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Assessee Revenue Revenue By Sh. Satpal Gulati Cit-Dr Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate

Section 132Section 153A

…ot compel the assessee to sell the goods at particular price. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- CO.277/Del/2016 1. CIT v. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1955] 28 ITR 952 (Mad) 4. S. Sivan Pillai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) 14.1 As far as page 10 of Annexure A-24/D-7 is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has explained that it reveals the area of flat and unit…

Cigna Health Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1117/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

…addition of Rs.3,68,97,011/- made by the AO be restored. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the principle of income does not include notional income is well settled by the decision in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) and CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC). Referring to the facts in the in the instant case that the assessee and Cigna TTK did not qualify as persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act during FY 2012-13, it is stated that the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant…

ITO 12 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Cigna Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

…addition of Rs.3,68,97,011/- made by the AO be restored. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the principle of income does not include notional income is well settled by the decision in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) and CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC). Referring to the facts in the in the instant case that the assessee and Cigna TTK did not qualify as persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act during FY 2012-13, it is stated that the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant…

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 115J

…ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT b) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v. CIT c) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v, CIT d) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cottom Mills Ltd. v. CIT e) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT f) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 51. The ld. Counsel accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) being in accordance with the law should be upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 52. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…12 dt.20/8/2014. Additions cannot be made merely on assumptions or presumptions or surmises or conjectures (i) K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); (ii) CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.1, (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Mere suspicion, no matter howsoever strong, is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus. Case Laws for Reference DY. CIT v. ADINATH INDUSTRIES (2001) 252 ITR 476 (2002) 120 TAXMAN 822 (GUJ) 29 I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd The Assessing Officer observed th…

Prakash Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4)., Ahmedabad

In the results, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2119/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.2119/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Prakash Tradelink P Ltd Ito, Ward-3(1)(4) 264, 2Nd Floor Ahmedabad. Vs Gunj Bazar O/S Delhi Gate Madhupura, Ahmedabad. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.P. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145

…usinessman to determine at which price it has to sell its products to its customers. The ld.counsel for the assessee relied upon various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts, viz. CI T Vs. Keshavlal Chandulal, 59 ITR 120 (Guj), CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., 91 ITR 8 (SC), A. Khadar Basha Vs. ACIT, 58 taxmanncom 332 (Karn), Flipkart India P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 92txmann.com 387 (Bang-Trib) and Sir Ramalinga Chodambikai Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, 28 ITR952 (Mad). The ld.DR on the other hand, supported the order of Revenue authorities. 7. I have considered submissions of both the parties and gone through the orders of Revenue…