How many judgments cite CIT v. S.M. Omer?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S.M. Omer (201 ITR 608), spanning 2015 to 2023.

CIT v. S.M. Omer

201 ITR 608High Court1993#8851 most cited

What is CIT v. S.M. Omer authority for?

In cases involving undisclosed sales inferred from seized documents, the Assessing Officer cannot resort to Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Instead, only the net profit rate should be applied to estimate the income from such sales.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.M. Omer · 201 ITR 608 · 1993 · undisclosed sales · net profit rate · seized documents · Section 69 · estimation of income · search and seizure · assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. S.M. Omer

Das Karmakar Brick Field, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD.23(1), Kolkata, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 40A(3)Section 44A

…vis a vis net profit of the assessee during the year and preceding three years the rate of net profit disclosed was 8.54%. The ld. AR 5 AY: 2013-14 Das Karmakar Brick Field submitted the judgement of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs S.M. Umer 201 ITR 608 where net profit rate is applied. Further he brought to our notice regarding the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (net profit rate applied). The same principles have been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Manumati Boro by the Guwahati Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 111/GTY/2020…

ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad vs. Ms Agarwal Foundries Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed in above terms

ITA 279/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri BurraFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra &

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 279/H/2013 & 1719/Hyd/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s MS Agarwal Income-tax, Circle – 16(2), Foundries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN – AAICS 4832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rajat Mitra & Shri Sumit Jain Assessee by: Shri Burra Date of hearing: 19/07/2021 Date of pronouncement: 24/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: ITA No. 279/Hyd/2013 for AY 2009-10…

ACIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S M S Agarwal Foundries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1719/HYD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri BurraFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra &

Section 143(3)

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3994/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

…liance was placed on various decisions including CIT vs. President Industries: 258 ITR 654 (Guj.), CIT v. Gurubachan Singh J. Juneja: 302 ITR 63 (Guj.), CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar: 263 ITR 610 (MP), Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT: 304 ITR 52 (MP), CIT v. S.M. Omer.: 201 ITR 608 (Cal) and host of other decisions. 64. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and contended that in the absence of any explanation, the AO has rightly made addition of unaccounted sales. 65. After considering the aforesaid submission and on perusal of the records, we find that this addition is again based on seized…

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3993/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

Jypore Manufaturing Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. JCIT(OSD), Jaipur

In the result appeals filed by assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 304/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT -DR

Section 153ASection 153C

…pur Bench Jaipur held as under – (a) Sales do not represent the income of the assessee and only the profit thereupon can be taxed. (b) Same profit rate as disclosed by the assessee shall have to be applied on unrecorded sales. (iii) CIT vs. S.M. Omer (1993) 201 ITR 608 (iv) Income Tax Officer vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja (1995) 55 ITD 75 (Ahd. TM) 2.6 Ld. AO however, did not controvert the books results of unaccounted business however by an ad hoc and summary approach mechanically adopted the GP rate of regular business as GP of unaccounted business. Thus the addition is based neither on any objective co…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Latex Chemicals (P) Ltd., Kanpur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5014/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 153A

…se of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654 (Guj). Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.M. Omer (1993) 201 ITR 608 (Cal) that in such circumstances AO cannot take resort to Section 69 of the IT Act, 1961, and only net profit rate has to be applied. So far as the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of GP rate is concerned, 5 the Ld. AR submitted that complete books of accounts were already available with the Assessing Officer in the soft copy as the…

ACIT, Central Circle-50(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Tutul Chowdhury, South 24 Parganas

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2452/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, ld.AR

…towards freight receipts. He stated that the net profit declared by the assessee was 6.4% and hence the same may kindly be adopted. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs S. M Omer reported in (1992) 201 ITR 608 (Cal). None appeared on behalf of the revenue when the case was called for hearing and no adjournment petition was even preferred by the revenue before us. Hence we proceed to dispose off the appeal after hearing the ld AR. 2.9. We have heard the ld AR. The facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the…

Sri Tutul Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-50, Kolkata

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

ITA 2328/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2328/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Tultul Chowdhury -Vs.- A.C.I.T/D.C.I.T., Circle-50, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aeppc 0271 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…towards freight receipts. He stated that the net profit declared by the assessee was 6.4%. and hence the same may kindly be adopted. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs S.M.Omer reported in ( 1992) 201 ITR 608 (Cal). None appeared on behalf of the revenue when 5 6 Sri Tultul Chowdhury A.Yr.2012-13 the case was called for hearing and no adjournment petition was even preferred by the revenue before us. Hence we proceed to dispose off the appeal after hearing the ld AR. 2.9. We have heard the ld AR.. The facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and he…

Biswabrata Maity, Hooghly vs. CIT, -Xx, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1188/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69

…sclosed purchase through corresponding sale. It is settled that the entire amount invested for the raw materials could not be added as income inasmuch as for the purpose of earning this income the assessee had made certain expenditure CIT vs. S.M. Omer (1993) 201 ITR 608(Cal), where the Assessing Officer made addition towards profit of assessee on account of credit sales made by him outside account books, it was held that total sales could not be regarded as profit of assessee and net profit rate had to be adopted on those sales as an immutable proposition while making addition [CIT Vs- Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003)…

Asst.C.I.T., Shimoga vs. M/S H. Omkarappa, Shimoga

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Shivamogga. … Appellant Vs. H .Omkarappa, Prop. M/S. N.R.Halagappa & Sons No.3, ’A’ Block, Apmc Yard, Shivamogga. … Respondent Pa No.Aabhh 1124 B

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala,JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 40

…nexplained deposits are relatable to unaccounted sales and directed that only GP addition of 8% of the total turnover of Rs.2,23,40,550/- should be made following the following decision: i. CIT vs. President Industries (258 ITR 654)(Guj. ii. CIT vs. S.M.Omar (201 ITR 608) iii. Anis Ahmed & Sons vs. CIT(A) (297 ITR 441)(SC) and iv. ITO vs. Gurubachan Singh Juneja (216 ITR 99)(ITAT, Ahm.) (216 ITR 99) As regards the disallowance of commission and interest u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the additions were deleted by the CIT(A) by observing that tax deducted or remitted to the Government of India before due date for filin…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga vs. M/S Karthik Poultry Farm, Chitradurga

In the result, revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12

ITA 1106/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…there was no material on record that the assessee has made investment to make unaccounted sales and the gross profits should be applied to the unaccounted sales. 7 ITA No.1106(B)14 The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.M. Omar reported in 201 ITR 608 it was held that the " assessee has supplied goods after incurring certain costs, etc. and amount to received could not be represent the net income and the estimation of the difference of net profit which was sought to be added and having actually added that difference, the ITO did not have any further jurisdiction to add an additions sum by a wa…