CIT v. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd.

135 ITR 546High Court1982#4288 most cited

What is CIT v. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. authority for?

The assessee bears the onus to prove the genuineness of purchases, especially when suppliers have denied sales, and mere reliance on previous assessment orders is insufficient.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. · 135 ITR 546 · genuineness of purchases · onus on assessee · denied sales · Sales Tax Authorities · assessment proceedings · burden of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatormere change of opinionspecified authoritysection 292bsection 148a(b)section 292change of opinionsection 149section 148asection 29tangible materialservice of notice

Judgments citing CIT v. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd.

Navnidhi Steel and Engg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3420/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…nwarlal Jain. Books of accounts were rejected by the A.O. u/s 145(3) of 1961 Act. The AO relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Chandra Vilas Hotels (1987) 164 ITR 102(Guj.) , CIT v. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills Limited (1982) 135 ITR 546(Guj) and Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing Society v. CIT (1993) 109 ITR 17(Guj.) , Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers Private Limited in ITA no. 120/2012 dated 07-01-2013 and CIT v. N R Portfolio Private Limited in ITA no. 1018/1019 of 2011 dated 22.11.2013. The 11 Navnidhi Steel & Engg. Co. Pvt.…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Sons (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5918/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charydharampal Satyapal Sons (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Kapil Goel, Adv., Central F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Circle-4, New Delhi-110085. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcd9090K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2017

Section 153ASection 37

…t of General Manager and sending him to the study at Southern Methodist University, USA is a farce and has nothing to do with the business activity of the assessee company. AO followed the decision reported in CIT vs Navsari Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. [1982] 135 ITR 546 (Guj.) and proceeded to disallow the said expenditure of Rs.25,90,354/-. In appeal, by way of impugned order, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the same grounds recorded by the AO. Hence, this appeal filed by the assessee before us. 3. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that Sh.Chitresh Gupta is primarily involved in improvement of the manuf…

Suresh L. Satyani, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3452/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Biren GabhawalaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nwarlal Jain. Books of accounts were rejected by the A.O. u/s 145(3) of 1961 Act. The AO relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Chandra Vilas Hotels (1987) 164 ITR 102(Guj.) , CIT v. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills Limited (1982) 135 ITR 546(Guj) and Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing Society v. CIT (1993) 109 ITR 17(Guj.) , Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers Private Limited in ITA no. 120/2012 dated 07-01-2013 and CIT v. N R Portfolio Private Limited in ITA no. 1018/1019 of 2011 dated 22.11.2013. The A.O. relying on the ratio of the d…

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…. Shalini Properties & Developers Pvt.Ltd is a revenue expenditure. 5.1.15. Now, the issue remaining for consideration is whether the expenditure is allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. In CIT v. Navsari Cotton &\'Bilk Mills Ltd.(135 ITR 546(Guj), the Hon'ble Gujrat High court have evolved the: following tests( which can be divided into two categories positive tests and negative tests) for deciding whether a particular expenditure can be termed as revenue or capital expenditure. One (at least one) of the positive tests must nod its head and none (not even one) of the negative tests m…

I.T.O WD - 7(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Shalini Properties & Developers Private Limited., Kolkata

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 301Section 37(1)

…iture. 13 M/s.Shalini Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 15. Now, the issue remaining for consideration is whether the expenditure is allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. In CIT vs, Navasri Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. (135 ITR 546 (Guj.) the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court have evolved the following tests (which can be divided into two categories – positive tests and negative tests) for deciding whether a particular expenditure can be termed as revenue or capital expenditure. One (at least one) of the positive tests must nod its head and none (not even one) of the negative tests…

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)

…for the claim of the commission, being only the service charges in relation thereto. Some of the classical cases in respect of expenditure in general (refer: Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 390 (Ker); CIT vs. Navsari Cotton & Silk Mills [1982] 135 ITR 546 (Guj)), and commission expenditure in particular (refer: Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC)) are referred to draw home the point. The findings by the ld. CIT(A) are based on bald claims, de hors any material on record. Merely making general statements, without…

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)

…for the claim of the commission, being only the service charges in relation thereto. Some of the classical cases in respect of expenditure in general (refer: Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 390 (Ker); CIT vs. Navsari Cotton & Silk Mills [1982] 135 ITR 546 (Guj)), and commission expenditure in particular (refer: Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC)) are referred to draw home the point. The findings by the ld. CIT(A) are based on bald claims, de hors any material on record. Merely making general statements, without…