CIT v. Swarup Cold Storage and General Mills

136 ITR 435High Court1982#19034 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 269SSSection 269T

Judgments citing CIT v. Swarup Cold Storage and General Mills

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1132/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…osition that the provisions of Indian Evidence Act do not strictly apply to income tax proceedings because the income tax proceedings are civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings as held in the case of CIT v. Swarup Cold Storage and General Mills [1982] 136 ITR 435 (All.). Also, the jurisdiction Tribunal in the case of Arvind M Kariya vs. ACIT (2013) 153 TTJ 0422 (MUM) has held that income tax proceedings are civil proceedings and the degree of proof required is by preponderance of probabilities. The principle of preponderance of probability means that a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the…

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1131/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…osition that the provisions of Indian Evidence Act do not strictly apply to income tax proceedings because the income tax proceedings are civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings as held in the case of CIT v. Swarup Cold Storage and General Mills [1982] 136 ITR 435 (All.). Also, the jurisdiction Tribunal in the case of Arvind M Kariya vs. ACIT (2013) 153 TTJ 0422 (MUM) has held that income tax proceedings are civil proceedings and the degree of proof required is by preponderance of probabilities. The principle of preponderance of probability means that a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the…

Associated Machinery Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…Corp. Ltd. ITR 492. Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT (All) 232 ITR 588 CIT vs. Md. WarasatHussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405 A.M. Shah & Co. vs. CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415 CIT vs. Krishnaswamy and Sons (Mad) 219 ITR 157 CIT vs. Svvarup Cold Storate& General Mills (All) 136 ITR 435. CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (Guj) 291 ITR 202 If the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings Bharat Rice Mill Vs. CIT (All) 278 ITR 599 S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs. CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682 CIT Vs. Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432 Mere offering explanation,…

S4 Interior, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4422/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodm/S S4 Interior, Assisstant Commissioner Of Income A-301E, Sumit Samarth Tax-25(3), Arcade, Tatya Tope Nagar, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Near Railway Station, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (West), Mumbai Mumbai- 400062 Pan – Abgfs7239E Assessee Revenue Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.R Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-32, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘Act’), Dated 23.09.2015. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 430,707/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…(1984) 146 ITR 492 (All) (iv). CIT Vs. Md. Warasat Hussain (1988) 171 ITR 405 (Patna) (v). A.M Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 415 (Guj) (vi). CIT Vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons (1996) 219 ITR 157 (Mad) (vii). CIT Vs. Swarup Cold Storage & General Mills (1982) 136 ITR 435 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (2007) 291 ITR 202 (Guj) It was averred by the ld. D.R, that as the appeal of the assessee was devoid of any force and did not merit acceptance, thus, the same may be dismissed. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the mater…

CIT v. Swarup Cold Storage and General Mills (136 ITR 435) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax