CIT v. Sakuntala Devi Khetan

352 ITR 484High Court2013#5045 most cited

What is CIT v. Sakuntala Devi Khetan authority for?

Income-tax authorities are bound by the sales tax authorities' acceptance of an assessee's sales tax returns and cannot scrutinize them without a difference or variation in closing stock by the competent sales tax authority.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sakuntala Devi Khetan · sales tax returns · accepted by sales tax authorities · binding on income-tax authorities · scrutiny of return · closing stock adjustment · section 80 · business

Issues it is cited on

ready for usesection 80ictax benefitsection 80ibsection 80isection 139(1)section 80transfercompanytotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Sakuntala Devi Khetan

ACIT, Circle-3, Asansol vs. Shri Shyam Cement Works Pvt. Ltd., Asansol

In the result Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs. Shri Shyam Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. Circle-3, Kolkata. (Pan: Aadcs8052J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Gupta, FCA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…ufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable. He placed reliance on CIT Vs Raghuraji Agro Industries 349 ITR 260 (All ), CIT Vs Dinesh Kumar (2005) 98 ttj (Jd) 695, CIT vs Sanjay Oil Cake Industries 197 CTR 521, CIT Vs Smt. Shakuntala Devi KhetanFor 352 ITR 484, Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd Vs. State of MP 60 ITR 41 and other decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court to support his argument that there cannot be any addition until and unless it is proved that there had been purchases made outside the books of account or there had been excess consumption of fuel which was not recorde…

M/S Kammavari Sangam, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, the orders of the CIT(Appeals) in ITA Nos

ITA 1099/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III &
Section 11

…xemption u/s. 11 of the Act can be denied? ITA Nos.206 & 207/Bang/2014 & 1099/Bang/2015 Page 10 of 31 13. The ld. counsel for the assessee in support of his contentions has placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi Khetan, 352 ITR 484 (Mad) and Mahan Marbles Pvt. Ltd., 354 ITR 238 (Raj), but both these judgments are not relevant to the present controversy of the case. 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that while denying the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in AY 2009-10, the AO has also made a reference to the cancellation of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. C…

DDIT vs. M/S Kammavari Sangha

In the result, the orders of the CIT(Appeals) in ITA Nos

ITA 206/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III &
Section 11

…xemption u/s. 11 of the Act can be denied? ITA Nos.206 & 207/Bang/2014 & 1099/Bang/2015 Page 10 of 31 13. The ld. counsel for the assessee in support of his contentions has placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi Khetan, 352 ITR 484 (Mad) and Mahan Marbles Pvt. Ltd., 354 ITR 238 (Raj), but both these judgments are not relevant to the present controversy of the case. 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that while denying the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in AY 2009-10, the AO has also made a reference to the cancellation of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. C…