CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram

275 ITR 312High Court2005#9955 most cited

What is CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram authority for?

Departmental authorities cannot discard a taxpayer's consistently adopted method of accounting or valuation simply because they believe a different method should have been used. The consistent method should not be disturbed as the closing stock of one year is the opening stock of the next.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram · 275 ITR 312 · Section 145(3) · consistent method of accounting · valuation of closing stock · book result · AO wrongly rejected · discretionary powers

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 14ASection 44AASection 44ABSection 8D(2)(iii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 1375/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Blue Star Diamonds Pvt Ltd Ce-9010,9013, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Room No.568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, 400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aadcb6475E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 14ASection 250

…payer consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping accounts or of valuation. Further, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Ema India Ltd [296 ITR 510] wherein it was held that where a consistent method of valuation of stock was adopted by the assessee, the same should not be disturbed because the closing stock of this year is the opening stock of subsequent year and hence, a consistent method adopted for valuation by the assessee should not be disturbed. In view of the above discussion, I fin…

Universal Music India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National Faceless Apeal Centre (NFAC), Dehi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 945/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.945/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Plot No.6-62, Block G, Bkc (Opp. Trident Hotel) Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaacp-1985-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikash Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘ The Cit(A) ] Dated 25/03/2021, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Four Grounds. Grounds Of Appeal No.1 & 2 Are General In Nature. The Grievance Of Assessee In Ground No. 3 & 4 Of Appeal Is:

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. GurjarFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

…his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) United Commercial Bank vs. CIT, 240 ITR 355(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd., 312 ITR 254(SC) (iii) CIT vs. Santram Mangatram, 275 ITR 312 (P&H) 3.1 In respect of ground No.4 of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that for the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee in Profit and Loss Account has not claimed any write off of bad debts/advances. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee referred to Schedule-17 to the Profit…

Sree Alankar, Ganjam vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

…with the correct principles. " • ACIT vs. M/s. Jewel India Jewellers (ITA No.2085/Kol/2013, order dated 01.06.2016) – By following the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (supra); CIT vs. Sant Ram Mangat Ram (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H); CIT vs. Ema India Ltd. (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All.) etc. "........ We find no merit in the said addition being made by the Assessing Officer where the valuation of closing stock has been changed vis-a-vis its value and not because of any difference in the quantity of stock. The assessee was consistently following a particular method of accou…

M/S the Keshab Jewellers, Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1225/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S The Keshab Jewellers -Vs- Jcit, Range-50, Kolkata [Pan: Aabft 5144 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kr. Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…of United Commercial Bank v. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC) wherein the principles were laid down for valuation of assets at page 366. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT v. Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT v. Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT v. Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon here…

ITO, WD-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Roopshree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 828/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 442/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 828/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…f United Commercial Bank vs CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC) wherein the principles were laid down for valuation of assets at page 366. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon her…

M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-9(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 442/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 828/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…f United Commercial Bank vs CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC) wherein the principles were laid down for valuation of assets at page 366. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon her…

ACIT, Circle-43, Kolkata vs. M/S. Jewel India Jewellers, Kolkata

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

ITA 202/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…f United Commercial Bank vs CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC) wherein the principles were laid down for valuation of assets at page 366. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) ITA No. 202/Kol/15 M/s. Jewel India Jewellers 7 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully followi…

M/S D.K.Basak Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT. Cir. 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 51/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri S. L. Kochar & Anil Kochar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…e in judging whether there has been income or not, but, in every case, it must be applied with care and within their recognized limits. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 3.9.6. We find that the ld AO had placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Allahabad Tribunal in the case of Jewellers Company vs ITO rep…

D.C.I.T Cir - 12, Kolkata. vs. M/S D.K..Basak Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 379/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri S. L. Kochar & Anil Kochar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…e in judging whether there has been income or not, but, in every case, it must be applied with care and within their recognized limits. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 3.9.6. We find that the ld AO had placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Allahabad Tribunal in the case of Jewellers Company vs ITO rep…

A.C.I.T Cir - 43, Kolkata vs. M/S Jewell India Jewellers, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2085/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate &
Section 143(3)

…f United Commercial Bank vs CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC) wherein the principles were laid down for valuation of assets at page 366. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon her…

Roy Brothers Jewellers, Asansol vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Asansol, Kolkata

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

ITA 21/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)

…enhanced the value of closing stock of jewellery thereby making the impugned addition. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in 275 ITR 312, wherein it was held that the assessee having continuously adopted one method of valuation of closing stock consistently from the inception of its business and the same having been accepted by the Department in the earlier years, it could not be rejected for particular assessment year. I.T.A. No. 21/KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 4 o…

CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram (275 ITR 312) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax