CIT v. McMillan & Co.

33 ITR 182Supreme Court of India1958#629 most cited

What is CIT v. McMillan & Co. authority for?

The Income Tax Officer (ITO), even when accepting the assessee's method of accounting, is not bound by the profit figures shown in the accounts and can still determine the correct profits.

156

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. McMillan & Co. · McMillan & Co. 33 ITR 182 · Section 145 · Section 145(3) · method of accounting · AO not bound by profit figures · assessment of business profits · income tax officer powers · accepted accounting method · profit computation

Sections most often in play

Section 43BSection 115JBSection 147Section 14ASection 153ASection 37Section 143(3)Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 3asection 31(3)section 120(4)(b)section 4asection 36(1)(v)section 10(20)section 145(1)section 61section 80hhc(3)section 46section 40a(7)section 115ja

Judgments citing CIT v. McMillan & Co.

The DCIT, 1(1), Ujjain vs. M/S. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance Ltd., Dewas

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

ITA 634/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 133ASection 143(2)

…ishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel the ITO to accept in all cases a balance sheet of cash receipt and out goings prepared from the books of account.” 3.2.15 In the case of Hon'ble CIT vs. McMillan& Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that : “ The ITO even when he accepts the assessee’s method of accounting is not bound by the figure of profits shown in the accounts .” 3.2.16 The AO has estimated 60% of sales i.e.1,06,49,250/- outside books of accounts on the basis of three statements only which appears to be on higher side considering…

M/S. Bhomiyaji Land & Finance Co., Dewas vs. The ITO, Dewas

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

ITA 490/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 133ASection 143(2)

…ishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel the ITO to accept in all cases a balance sheet of cash receipt and out goings prepared from the books of account.” 3.2.15 In the case of Hon'ble CIT vs. McMillan& Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that : “ The ITO even when he accepts the assessee’s method of accounting is not bound by the figure of profits shown in the accounts .” 3.2.16 The AO has estimated 60% of sales i.e.1,06,49,250/- outside books of accounts on the basis of three statements only which appears to be on higher side considering…

The DCIT, 1(1), Ujjain vs. M/S. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance Co., Dewas

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

ITA 412/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 133ASection 143(2)

…ishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel the ITO to accept in all cases a balance sheet of cash receipt and out goings prepared from the books of account.” 3.2.15 In the case of Hon'ble CIT vs. McMillan& Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that : “ The ITO even when he accepts the assessee’s method of accounting is not bound by the figure of profits shown in the accounts .” 3.2.16 The AO has estimated 60% of sales i.e.1,06,49,250/- outside books of accounts on the basis of three statements only which appears to be on higher side considering…

The DCIT, 1(1), Ujjain vs. M/S. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance Co., Dewas

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

ITA 411/IND/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 133ASection 143(2)

…ishna Swami Mudliyar (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) held that: “ Section 145 does not compel the ITO to accept in all cases a balance sheet of cash receipt and out goings prepared from the books of account.” 3.2.15 In the case of Hon'ble CIT vs. McMillan& Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that : “ The ITO even when he accepts the assessee’s method of accounting is not bound by the figure of profits shown in the accounts .” 3.2.16 The AO has estimated 60% of sales i.e.1,06,49,250/- outside books of accounts on the basis of three statements only which appears to be on higher side considering…

Bigesto Technoloties Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6060/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year : 2010-11 Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/S. Bigesto Technologies Ltd., B-11, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi Pan : Aaacb3036E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 145A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/s. Bigesto Technologies Ltd., B-11, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi PAN : AAACB3036E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. R.C. Danday, Sr.DR Date of hearing 14.09.2017 Date of pronouncement 06.10.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 09/09/2014 of the Commissioner of Income-tax( Appeals)-VI, New Delhi [ in short ‘the CIT-(A)] for assessment ye…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S Arihant Pulication (India) Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5405/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 145(3)

…). Jaytick Intermediates (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 73 Taxman.com 195(Guj.) (ii). CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani, 326 ITR 223 (Del.). (iii). Ashok Refractories P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 279 ITR 457 (Cal.) (iv). Swapna Rani Sarkar vs. CIT, 320 ITR 70 (Gau) (v). M. Durai Raj vs. CIT, 33 ITR 182 (SC) (vi). CIT vs. M/s. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95(Del.) (vii). Pandit Bors. Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 159 (Punj) (viii). Madnani Construction Corpn. P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 45(Gau). (ix). Malani Ramjivan Jagannath vs. ACIT, 316 ITR 120 (Raj.) (x). CIT vs. Rajni Kant Dave, 281 ITR 6 (All.) (xi). CIT vs. Om Overseas, 173 Taxman 185 (P&H) (xii). Ja…

Asst CIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Dinesh V. Bahirwani, Mumbai

ITA 7497/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dinesh V. Bahirwani, Dcit 20(2), Unit No.605, Business Suites बनाम/ Mumbai- 9 Ploot No.83, Vs. S.V. Rd, Santacruz(W) Mumbai-400054 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Abrpb3559K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 24(2) Dinesh V. Bahirwani, 612, Piramal Chambers, Unit No.605, Business बनाम/ Lalbaug, Suites 9 Ploot No.83, Vs. Mumbai-400012 S.V. Rd, Santacruz(W) Mumbai-400054 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Abrpb3559K Appellant By Shri Vipul Shah (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2016 18/10/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)

…hod has been found acceptable in earlier years, the reason for rejection of the same should be clearly brought out. It is open to the assessee to choose the method but the same should be consistently adopted as held in CIT v. McMillan & Co. [19581 reported at 33 ITR 182 (SC). In the decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Advance Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. [2005] reported at 275 ITR 30 (Guj.)held as follo ws: “14........., it is necessary to note that under section 145 of the Act income chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' shall be computed in accord method of accounting regular…

Dinesh V Bahirwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(2), Mumbai

ITA 7471/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dinesh V. Bahirwani, Dcit 20(2), Unit No.605, Business Suites बनाम/ Mumbai- 9 Ploot No.83, Vs. S.V. Rd, Santacruz(W) Mumbai-400054 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Abrpb3559K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 24(2) Dinesh V. Bahirwani, 612, Piramal Chambers, Unit No.605, Business बनाम/ Lalbaug, Suites 9 Ploot No.83, Vs. Mumbai-400012 S.V. Rd, Santacruz(W) Mumbai-400054 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Abrpb3559K Appellant By Shri Vipul Shah (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2016 18/10/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)

…hod has been found acceptable in earlier years, the reason for rejection of the same should be clearly brought out. It is open to the assessee to choose the method but the same should be consistently adopted as held in CIT v. McMillan & Co. [19581 reported at 33 ITR 182 (SC). In the decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Advance Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. [2005] reported at 275 ITR 30 (Guj.)held as follo ws: “14........., it is necessary to note that under section 145 of the Act income chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' shall be computed in accord method of accounting regular…

M/S Continental Carriers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/415/2004HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260ASection 80

…that it was incumbent upon the AO to give facts and figures to demonstrate that the method of accounting followed by the Assessee had resulted in under- estimation of profits. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. McMillan & Co.: 33 ITR 182 SC to contend that the method of accounting adopted by the Assessee must be scrutinised carefully and such power should be exercised reasonably and judicially. 16. Next, Mr Kaushik referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.: 312 ITR 254 SC and the decision of this Court in CIT v. Jagatjit Indust…

M/S Continental Carrier vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/264/2002HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260ASection 80

…that it was incumbent upon the AO to give facts and figures to demonstrate that the method of accounting followed by the Assessee had resulted in under- estimation of profits. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. McMillan & Co.: 33 ITR 182 SC to contend that the method of accounting adopted by the Assessee must be scrutinised carefully and such power should be exercised reasonably and judicially. 16. Next, Mr Kaushik referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.: 312 ITR 254 SC and the decision of this Court in CIT v. Jagatjit Indust…

M/S Continental Carrier vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 264 / 2002HC Delhi26 Apr 2016
Section 260ASection 80

…that it was incumbent upon the AO to give facts and figures to demonstrate that the method of accounting followed by the Assessee had resulted in under- estimation of profits. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. McMillan & Co.: 33 ITR 182 SC to contend that the method of accounting adopted by the Assessee must be scrutinised carefully and such power should be exercised reasonably and judicially. 16. Next, Mr Kaushik referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.: 312 ITR 254 SC and the decision of this Court in CIT v. Jagatjit Indust…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Mastermind Publication (India) P. Ltd., Meerut

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6641/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. O.P. Supara, Sr. Adv
Section 145(3)

…bound to accept the method of accounting regularly employed by an assessee, except for a situation where the AO is able to demonstrate that income, profits and gains cannot be arrived at by the method employed by the assessee. In the case of McMillan and Co. (33 ITR 182), the Honorable Supreme Court held that the choice of method of accounting lies wife the assessee and the assessee should only show that he had followed the method regularly. Similar is the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Investment Ltd (77 ITR 533) that a method of accounting adopted by a trader consistently and regularly cannot be d…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…. Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kas…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…. Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kas…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4749/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…. Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kas…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advert Communication, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: S/Shri K. Sampath, Raja Kumar, Advocates
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 69C

…sub-section (1) of section 251 in the appeal against the order of assessment, the CIT(A) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. While laying dicta about the powers of the CIT(A), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs McMillan & Co. Reported as 33 ITR 182(S.C.) approving the proposition laid by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narrondas Manordass vs CIT 31 ITR 909 (Bombay), it was held that the powers of CIT(A) are much wider than the powers of the appellate under Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and he has jurisdiction over entire assessment without being confined to the issues or subject matt…