CIT v. Margttret's Hope Tea Co. Ltd.

201 ITR 747High Court1993#10346 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54B Section 69 Section 69A

Judgments citing CIT v. Margttret's Hope Tea Co. Ltd.

MARIAMMA KURIAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Boradmariamma Kurian, Income Tax Officer 1(1) Mig-93 A-Sector, Bhopal Vs. Sonagiri Piplani, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspk4941P Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…department has not established any other source. It is a settled proposition of law that in case there is only one source of income, any unaccounted income shall be treated as out of that source. Laxmi Chand Baijnath 35 ITR 416 (SC) Margret Hope Tea Mfg. Co 201 ITR 747 (Cal.); Krishna Kumar Paliwal 9 IT] 348 (Trib. Indore); Shri Madhusudan Dhakad 44 IT] 401 (Trib. Indore) 4. The assessee in any case, purchased another agricultural land for Rs. 30.60 lakhs. This fact was also uncontroverted. Thus, the capital gains was invested in purchase of another agricultural land and was exempt u/s. 54B in any case”. 4(b)…

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

ITA 239/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 69ASection 69C

…ed for business then it is not unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. He then referred to the decisions of Hon. Calcutta High Court in the case of DaulatramRawatmull vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 (Cal), and CIT vs. Margarets Hope Tea Co. Ltd. 201 ITR 747 (Cal) for the same proposition. 7. The ld. AR further submitted that if there is a positive figure under the head 'business' then it has to be necessarily aggregated with the deemed income under section 69A, 69B & 69C for working out gross total income from which allowable deductions under Chapter-VIA are reduced and thereafter total income is w…

ACIT (OSD), WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…the case of Lakhmichand Baijnath vs. CIT 35 ITR 415 where sums found credited in the books of the assessee were treated as business profits. Similarly, view has also been taken by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Margaret’s Hope Tea Co. Ltd. 201 ITR 747 and Mansfield and Sons vs. CIT 48 ITR 254. Further, the Act has also been amended to deny set of loss for such kind of income but the amendment is effective from 01.04.2017. In view of the above, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow set off of derivative loss as business loss (amounting to Rs…

AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

ITA 910/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

…of Lakshmichand Baijnath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416 where sums found credited in the books of account of the assessee were treated as business profits Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Margttret's Hope Tea Co. Ltd. 201 ITR 747 and Mansfield and Sons vs. CIT 48 ITR 254. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court observed :- ITA No.910 & 1187/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 ACIT Cir-1/2 Bwn Vs. M/s Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 7. A similar question came up before this court in I. T.Ref. No. 5 of 1984 (CIT vs. Hasimara Industries Ltd.), where tile judgement by this Bench w…

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

ITA 1187/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

SHRI VASUDEO PATIDAR,VILLATE TILLORE KHURD, INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 473/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Vasudev Patidar, Income Tax बनाम/ Village- Tillor Khurd, Officer -2(4), Vs. District Indore(Mp) Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Bybpp1563R Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Advs. Revenue By Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-I, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 24.03.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 28.01.2016 By Ito- 2(4), Indore. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(2)Section 144

…8 (Trib. Indore). It is a settled proposition of law as laid in Laxmichand Baijnath 35 ITR 416 (SC), that where unaccounted income is found, it shall be from same source as the accounted source. This judgment was further followed in Margret’s Hope Tea Mfg Co. 201 ITR 747 (Cal.), where it was held that cash credits were the tea income of the assessee, as this was the known source of income. In DIT (Exemption) vs Raunaq Education Foundation 294 ITR 76 (Del.), it was held that where the assessee was running educational institution, any unaccounted income was to be held as the income from educational institution onl…

ANISH TANDON vs. C.I.T. IX

ITA/592/2005HC Delhi30 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 69Section 80Section 80H

…$~40 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 592/2005 ANISH TANDON ..... Appellant Through : None. versus C.I.T. IX ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 30.08.2018 On 29.08.2006, while admitting the appeal, the following question of law was framed : “Whether there is any perversity in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in com…

BHIMA JEWELLERS,SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…ow the accounting treatment given by the assessee can be overruled by the authorities. Therefore, in our opinion, the aforesaid case law is not applicable in the assessee's case. 6.4 Now, we come to the case law of CIT Vs. Margaret's Hope Tea Co. Ltd.([1993] 201 ITR 747(Cal.). In the said case, the facts before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court were clearly different as the cash credit in question had appeared in the assessee's books of accounts. Therefore, Hon'ble High Court had rightly held that the cash credits were result of assessee's main business activity. After perusing the said case law, we notice that th…

BINDAL SMELTING (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5568/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri At Varkeyay: 2010-11 Bindal Smelting P.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 3(1) 987, 1St Floor, Hardhiyan Singh Road New Delhi Karolbagh New Delhi 110 005

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Chopra, Sr. D.R

Section 115Section 80Section 80I

….Ltd., New Delhi ACIT in ITA 1634/Ahmd./2006 for the A.Y. 2003-04 and other case law for this proposition. 7.2. He further relied on the following case laws. * CIT vs. SK Srigiri & Bros. (2008) 298 ITR 13 (Karna) * CIT vs. Margaret’s Hope Tea Co. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 747 (Cal.) 8. The Ld.Sr.D.R. on the other hand disputed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that the assessee has admitted before the excise authorities that there was a shortage in stock and has accordingly paid the duty. He argued that such confessional statement cannot be retracted at this juncture. He relied on the order of the authori…