CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

160 ITR 920Supreme Court of India1986#1565 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. · 160 ITR 920 SC · Section 37(1) Income Tax Act · business expenditure allowance · Section 147 reassessment · Section 132 search and seizure · Section 153A block assessment · cash credits section 69A · assessment procedure · Income Tax Act · 1961

Also reported as

58 CTR 138

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 69A Section 133(6)Section 153A Section 132

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

gaar section 153(a)(1)section 11b section 65(b)section 181 section 10b(8)section 2(24)(xviii)section 194q section 158bb(1)section 2(45)convertible foreign exchange section 193

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

The Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 39(4), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2787/Del

ITA 2788/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JainFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…deduction to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from total income so computed’. The A.O. however, did not allow even the same benefit. The assessee-society relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., (1986) 160 ITR 920 (SC) in which it was held that that “it is the duty of the A.O. to apply the relevant provisions of the Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of assessee’s total income and consequential tax liability.” The assessee also relied upon Board Circular 9 ITA.Nos.2787 & 2788/Del./2018 M/s. The Veer Cooperative Group Housing Society Limite…

Thye Veer Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2787/Del

ITA 2787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi JainFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. D.R

Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Kgl Network (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 14(2), New Delhi

ITA 301/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Priyansh Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT-D.R

Section 234ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44B

…ause the issue shall have to be considered and decided as per Law. Further, the assessee-company has filed the revised audit report to clarify the above position. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., (1986) 160 ITR 920 (SC) held 29 ITA.No.301/Del./2018 M/s. KGL Network (P) Ltd., Delhi. that “duty caste on A.O. to apply relevant provisions of Law for the purpose of determining the true figure of assessee’s taxable income”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) held that “revenue authorities sho…

ITO, W-2, Khanna vs. Smt. Kamaljit Dhillon, Samrala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1319/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito, Vs. Smt. Kamaljit Dhillon, Ward-2, W/O Lt. Shri Jagtar Singh, Khanna. H.No. 22, Ward No.11, Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana Pan No. : Cfopd0532F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl CITFor Respondent: None

Section 144Section 147Section 68

…wed to file appeals willy nilly. Such rampant careless behaviour shakes the public trust and faith reposed in the authority of the AO to act fairly and impartially as has been noted by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 920 (S.C) “There is a duty cast on the ITO to apply the relevant provision of the Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee’s taxable income and the consequential tax liability”. It would not be out of place to extend this that so as to also mean that it is also the duty of the Assessing Officer to file appeals only if the AO…

Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Kangra vs. ITO, Palampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1042/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2010-11 Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Vs. The Ito, Phc Rakkar Tehsil-Baijnath, Palampur. Distt. – Kangra (Hp). Pan No. : Aabar0440H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y.K.Sud,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT

Section 10

…eely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. 5.2 Following proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd 160 ITR 920 was also relied upon by the coordinate Bench where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in unambiguous terms that: “There is a duty cast on the Income-tax officer to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee’s taxable income and the consequential tax liability. That the ass…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1604/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘Ksfc Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent Pan:Aaack 9480 H Appellant By : Shri A.C.Raju, Ca. Respondent By : Shri B.R.Ramesh, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, [Cit(A)], Dated 28/06/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Respondent-Assessee Is An Undertaking Of Government Of Karnataka Set Up For The Purpose Of Providing Finance To Industries In The State Of Karnataka. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30/09/2009. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Order Dated 28/11/2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] At Loss Of Rs.3,58,95,3461/. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.34,17,548/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Legal & Professional Charges In Page 2 Of 8 Connection With Issue Of Bonds Of Rs.41,79,935/-, Also Not Allowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs.548.64 Lakhs Being The Liability Arising On Account Rejection By Government Of Karnataka On The Ground That The Claim Was Not Made In The Original Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘KSFC Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent PAN:AAACK 9480 H Appellant by : Shri A.C.Raju, CA. Respondent by : Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 18/01/2018 Date of pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Dinesh Shrama, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 226/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 133Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 34Section 48

…late authority which was not raised earlier. Useful reference can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parabolic springs Ltd. 306 ITR 42 (Del). The Hon'ble Apex Court of India, CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR 138 (SC) held that there is duty cast on the AO to apply the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the purpose of determining the true figure of taxable income and consequential tax liability. That the appellant fails to claim the benefit cannot relieve the AO of his duty to apply the relevant provision of the Act. From the above observat…

DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Mackintosh Burn Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 790/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80I

…ime, but the claim need not necessarily be made in the original return, it can be made subsequent thereto also. ” 7. Finally, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. reported in (1986) 160 ITR 920 (SC) wherein it was held that – 6 Mackintosh Burn Ltd., AY 2006-07 “In the second place there is a duty cast on the ITO to apply the relevant provisions of the Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee’s taxable income and the consequential tax liability. Merely because the assessee fails to claim the benefit of a set of…

M/S. Ismail Abdulkarim Balwa, Mumbai vs. The DCIT RG 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2680/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Ismail Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7570M (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Hussein Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7572K (Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 32

…e Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chokshi Metal Refinery (supra) and also the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette (supra). In fact, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., 160 ITR 920 (SC) goes to say that even in case where assessee failed to claim a benefit, the same would not relieve the income-tax authorities of the duty to allow a particular benefit which is otherwise available to the assessee in law. Therefore, the mere factum of assessee declaring income from the co- ownership property as ‘business income’ is not conclu…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5378/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Room No. Vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Khemka, 409A, C.R. Building, I.P. E-292, Sarita Vihar, New Estate, New Delhi Delhi Gir/Pan :Aanpk9254H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Date Of Hearing 29.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 18/07/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10, Raising Following Grounds: I. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing 100% Deduction U/S 80Ic Instead Of 25% By Considering Return Of Income Which Was Filed After Due Date U/S 139(5) Of The It Act? Ii. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Additional Evidence

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…e, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahalkshmi Sugar Mills 160 ITR 920 (SC) held that there is a duty cast on the Income-tax Officer to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee's taxable income and the consequential tax liability. Merely because the assessee fails to claim the benefit of a set-off, it cannot relieve the Income-tax Offic…

I.T.O WD - 7(2), Kolkata. vs. M/S Wizard Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 280/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…essee had only run the risks of not having been able to avail the benefit of justice and not gained anything by not claiming deduction under the correct section. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd reported in (1986) 160 ITR 920(SC) has observed as under:- "There is a duty cast on the Income-tax Officer to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of the assessee's taxable income and the consequential tax liability_ That the assessee fails to claim the benefit of a set-off cannot relieve the Income-tax Offi…

ITO, Ward - 7(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wizard Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

ITA 628/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: None appeared on behalf of the revenue

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…sment is to compute income in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The assessing officer is therefore, even otherwise, duty bound to grant relief, which the assessee may not have claimed in the return of income: - CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd: 160 ITR 920 (SC) - National Thermal Power Limited v. CIT: 229 ITR 383 (SC) - Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT: 256 ITR 423 (Gau.) - Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. V. CIT: 122 ITR 168 (AP –FB) - CIT V. Smt. Archana R. Dhanswatay: 136 ITR 355 (Bom) - Smt. Shen Lata Jain V. CIT: 192 CTR 50 (J&K) 14.16 In view of the aforesaid submissions and the cited decisi…