CIT v. Smt. Singari Bal

13 ITR 224High Court1945#16621 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 145Section 40A(2)(b)Section 194(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)section 209minimum alternate taxblock of assetsput to usemercantile system of accountingprofits and gains of business or professionbook profitssection 40asection 44absection 115jsection 145

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Singari Bal

DCIT-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhawan vs. Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt Ltd, Nariman Point

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5092/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

…ssment to ethod of making up the statutory return for assessment to ethod of making up the statutory return for assessment to income-tax. Similar principle was Similar principle was laid down in the case of the case of CIT v. Smt. Singari Bal [1945) 13 [1945) 13 ITR 224 (All.) (FB) where it was held that the ITR 224 (All.) (FB) where it was held that the assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his own business adopt the mercantile basis and the…

Marshall Produce Brokers Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4918/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

…ssment to ethod of making up the statutory return for assessment to ethod of making up the statutory return for assessment to income-tax. Similar principle was Similar principle was laid down in the case of the case of CIT v. Smt. Singari Bal [1945) 13 [1945) 13 ITR 224 (All.) (FB) where it was held that the ITR 224 (All.) (FB) where it was held that the assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his own business adopt the mercantile basis and the…

Marshall Produce Brokers Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4917/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

…ssment to ethod of making up the statutory return for assessment to ethod of making up the statutory return for assessment to income-tax. Similar principle was Similar principle was laid down in the case of the case of CIT v. Smt. Singari Bal [1945) 13 [1945) 13 ITR 224 (All.) (FB) where it was held that the ITR 224 (All.) (FB) where it was held that the assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his own business adopt the mercantile basis and the…

Vedanta Ltd (Earlier Known As Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 263Section 271

…ed during the year, deduction must be allowed though the liability may be quantified at a later date. ii) Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: CIT vs. Burhal Sugar Mills Co. Limited, (82 ITR 784) (All.) CIT vs. Singari Bai [1945] 13 ITR 224 (All.) Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. 57 ITR 521 (SC) Metal Box Co. of India vs. Their workman 73 ITR 53 (SC) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) CIT vs. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. (196 CTR 369) [Delhi] CIT Tamil Nadu vs. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. (141 ITR 415) [Mad] ITAT Chennai & Commissioner Appeals has decid…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 47 of 484 regularly followed by the appellant and accepted by the Department. Reliance in this regard is placed on: i. UCO Bank v. CIT: 240 ITR 355 (SC) ii. CIT v. Singaribai: 13 ITR 224 (All.)(FB) iii. Juggilal v. CIT: 101 ITR 40 (All.) iv. CIT v. TISCO: 106 IR 363 (Bom.) v. CIT v. Sankarapandia: 130 ITR 541 (Mad.) vi. Balapur Mandali v. CIT: 135 ITR 91 (Guj.) He further stated that In any case, considering that the appellant is a high tax paying company, subjected to uniform rate of tax, no adjustment is even otherwise called f…

CIT v. Smt. Singari Bal (13 ITR 224) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax