CIT v. Metal Products of India

150 ITR 714High Court1984#2436 most cited

What is CIT v. Metal Products of India authority for?

The Assessing Officer has the authority to collect information in any manner and utilize it for framing an assessment, provided there is material on record to substantiate any addition made.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Metal Products of India · 150 ITR 714 · Assessing Officer powers · collection of information · framing assessment · material on record · addition to income · section 143(3) · section 147 · section 142(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 14a disallowancebogus share capitalsection 153(a)audi alteram partemtax benefiton-moneysection 292csection 132(4a)tested partyshell companyviolation of natural justiceentry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. Metal Products of India

M/S. A.C. Goods Transport Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2428/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2004-05

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

…particulars thereof. 7. Assessee placed reliance on the decisions reported in CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd (2008) 303 ITR 53 (Punjab and Haryana); CIT verses Kailash crockery house (1999) 235 ITR 554 (Patna); CIT verses metal products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (Punjab and Haryana); CIT vs. Whitelene chemicals (2014) 360 ITR 385 (Guj); CIT verses Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (Allahabad); CIT verses Aero traders (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Delhi); CIT verses Modi industrial Corporation (2010) 195 Taxman 68 (Punjab and Haryana) and CIT verses Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 378. Further reliance is also mad…

Sri.Joy K.V., Trichur vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), RG-2, Trichur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay

ITA 207/COCH/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.207 /Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri K.V. Joy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Koonan House, Mission Quarters, Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Thrissur-680 01. Range-2, Thrissur [Pan : Aqspk 9358H]

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

…l and it was a simple case of one estimate against another estimate, and therefore, penalty cannot be levied. Similarly, Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Badve (138 ITR 82); Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (150 ITR 714); Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajay Hari Dalmia (157 ITR 145); and Madras High Court in the case of Bombay Hardware Syndicate vs. CIT (114 ITR 586) have taken a view that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was not imposable in relation I.T.A. No.207/C/2018 & SP No.22/C/2018 to estimated additions because the factum of either concealment of partic…

Suresh Jindal, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1664/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…gation could be made out against the assessee, making the conduct of assessee punishable with penalty. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714, wherein it has been observed that the addition if made on estimation under the proviso of Section 145(1) of the Act by adopting the view that GP shown in the books of accounts was too low, does not automatically lead to the invocation of penalty. We further note that the case laws cited by the Ld. Sr. DR. are on distinguished facts. 6. In the…

M/S Euro Jewels, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…ated 19.09.2013 has held: Merely because books of accounts of the assessee were rejected or estimated addition was made, in our view, no penalty is leviable. b. CIT vs. Kailash Crockery House (1999) 235 ITR 544 (Pat) c. CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) d. CIT v. Whiteline Chemicals (Guj) (Tax Appeal No. 496/2102) dated 15.01.2013 e. CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj) f. CIT vs. Raj Bans Singh (2005) 276 ITR 351 (All) g. CIT v. Aero Traders (2010) 231 CTR 524 (Delhi) h. CIT v. Modi Industrial Corporation (2010) 195 Taxman 68 (P&H) i. CIT v. Vijay Kumar Jain (201…

Royal Nursing Home, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay B. Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bepari, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…t estimated receipt from X-ray, Pathology, Sonography, OPD made by the AO of Rs. 14,40,000/- has been confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. The assessee has shown receipts from X-ray, Pathology, Sonography. In CIT vs Metal Products of India [(1984) 150 ITR 714 (Punj)], it has been held that merely because the addition has been made on estimate under the first proviso to section 145(1) cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that there was failure to return 6 the correct income by means of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab High Court in Metal Pro…

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Amrit Petroleums P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5745/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Chaniyari,ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar,DR
Section 145(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the AO has determined the annual value at 8.5% of the cost of properties. This is not the way to do so. There is no precedent for doing so. In CIT vs Metal Products of India [(1984) 150 ITR 714 (Punj)], it has been held that merely because the addition has been made on estimate under the first proviso to section 145(1) cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that there was failure to return the correct income by means of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. 7.1 We hold that the determination of annual value at 8.5% of the cost of prop…

Sonali A. Shah, Mumbai vs. I.T.O 14(3) (3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5720/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sonali A. Shah, I.T.O. – 14(3), Raj Parashar, Earnest House, 3Rd Floor, Nariman Point, Flat No.301-2-3, Vs. Mumbai – 21 95/F, Indranarayan Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Agdps 6844D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 145Section 271(1)(c)

…ependent. He cannot blindly rely on assessment order for imposing penalty. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions for the proposition when income is estimated penalty is not attracted. 1. CIT(A) vs. Metal Products of India 150 ITR 714 (P & H) 2. CIT vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbalkhan Badruddin and Party 240 ITR 778 (Rajasthan) 3. Harigopal Sing vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P & H) 4. Shri Narayansingh J. Deora vs. ACIT (ITA No.5895/Mum/2010 dated 09.12.2011) The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd.…