CIT v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

106 ITR 363High Court1977#10955 most cited

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

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Guwahati vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. Steels (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR

Section 133(6)

…ccept such method as a basis of assessment for that year. Further the rejection of particular method of accounting if it is unreasonable cannot be justified on the ground that better method could be utilized." In the case ofCIT vs. TATA Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [106 ITR 363] it was held that it would be difficult for a company which carries on business of the magnitude of the assessee- company to fix in which particular year a particular plant which was obsolete became non-existent, or in which particular year the company became aware of the non- existence of a particular plant. The Tribunal has, in its order, right…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5, Pune vs. Sangam Press Private Limited, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 674/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.674/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Circle-5, Pune. Vs. Sangam Press Private Limited, 17-B, Sangam House, Sangam Press Road, Pune- 411038. Pan : Aaccs5995B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Assessee By Shri C. H. Naniwadekar : Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, [In Short The “Cit(A)”] Pune’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023- 24/1060642739(1), Dated 08.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(3)Section 43C

…AY 2018-19 and following years whenever the assessee company has offered the Income for taxation. Thus the whole exercise of re-assessing the income will be revenue neutral. 13. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (106 ITR 363) held that when the method of accounting followed by the assessee company cannot be said to be an unreasonable method, and that in such a case, even if a better method could be visualized, the method consistently followed is to be accepted. 14. In the case of CIT v. Bill Hari Investment Ltd. (299 ITR 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follo…

DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

ITA 1202/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-15(2)(1) M/S Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 357, 3Rd Floor, A-1, Ashian Sector-17, Vashi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 705 Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaack3955F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopati, D.RFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…then, in such a case even if a better method could be visualized, the method consistently followed cannot be rejected. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co .Ltd. (1977)106 ITR 363 (Bom). Also, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bill Hari Investment Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 DCIT-15(2)(1) Vs. M/s Kalsha Builders Pvt. ltd. 7 ITA No. 1202/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 (SC), every assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method which the department had earlier accepted. It was further obser…

Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha , ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…anticipated profit in the shape of appreciation in the value of stock is not brought into account. This case law, in our considered opinion, is not of much help to assessee. 24. The Ho'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (106 ITR 363) held that when the method of accounting followed by the assessee company cannot be said to be an unreasonable method, and that in such a case, even if a better method could be visualized, the method consistently followed can be accepted. 25. In view of the above discussion, we have to necessarily uphold the contention of the assessee and allow…

M/S. L & T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. The Dy It Cir 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2901/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint Dy. Commissioner Of Venture Vs. Income Tax Range 12(2), Taxation Department, L&T Room No. 114, 1St Floor, House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Estate, Mumbai-400001 Marg, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaal0284E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nishant Samaiya, DR

Section 143

…7,74,485/- made by the AO. 23. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee cannot be disturbed and in this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (106 ITR 363), Realest Builders & Services Ltd. (307 ITR 202), Bilahari Investments (P.) Ltd. (299 ITR 1), Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint 295), Snow White Food Products Co. Ltd. (141 ITR 861), Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (33 ITR 681), Balapur Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Mandal Ltd. (135 ITR 91), Alfa Laval India Ltd. (113 Taxman 740) and India M…

Sohanlal M Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1), Thane

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5776/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…4572(Del) of 2009 3. DCIT v/s Ansal Landmark Township P Ltd. ITA No.2859/ Del/2012 4. Unique Enterprises Vs. ITO [2010- TIOL -737- ITAT- MUM 5. Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd, vs. Dy. CIT (2010)33 DTR 514 (Bang.) 6. C1T v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd, (1977j 106 ITR 363 (Bom HC) 7. Swastik Group Versus ACIT 15(3), Mumbai 8. Sheth Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs ITO ITAT Mumbai 18 July, 2012 9. Asstt CIT v Dharti Estate(2011] 129 ITD 1 (Mum)(TM), 10. Prem Enterprises V/s ITO (2012] 25 taxmann.com 179 (Mum.) 11. Nandi Housing (P.) Ltd. V/.s DCIT (2004] 2 SOT 395 (BANG.) 12. H.M. Constructions V/s JCIT[2003] 84ITD 429…

ITO 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Haldyn Glass Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4738/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer, Haldyn Glass Ltd. Ward 10(1)(1) 9 Gayatri Commercial Mumbai-400 020 Complex, Mittal Indl Estate, A.K. Rd, Marol Naka, Vs. Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 059 Pan No. Aaach0411P Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Assessee By .. Shri Piyush Chaturvedi, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 11-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 31-05-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ich the value of Rs. 6.22 lakh had been arrived by taking the value on weight basis of the salvage inventory, stores and spares and packing material etc. In the similar facts Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Iron and steel Co. Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 363 (Bom) held as under: - “That brings me to the item of Rs. 1,78,277, which is the subject-matter of the third question referred to us. As far as this item is concerned, it will be necessary to state a few facts. The method of accounting regularly adopted by the assessee-company was to claim obsolescence allowance in respect of discarded plants un…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Surya Gems, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-16(2)(4), M/S Surya Gems, बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Flat No.4, 02Nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Bhaveshwar Sgar Patel Vs. Mumbai-400007 Compound 20 Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-400020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfs6513Q याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

…egularly employed may be discarded only if, in the opinion of the taxing authorities, income of the trade cannot be properly deduced therefrom. He further referred to the decision of the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the 15 M/s Surya Gems case of CIT v. TISCO, 106 ITR 363 (Bom), wherein also, similar view was taken. In support of this proposition, he also relied on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd., 312 ITR 254 (SC), wherein, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as under:- ――For the reasons given hereinabove, we hold that, in the present…

Inventurus Knowledge Services P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed

ITA 5922/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2009-10 Inventurus Knowledge Services V. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 5(2)(1), C/O. Seren Properties Pvt. Ltd. 525, Aaykar Bhavan, (Sez), Unit No. 204, Build No. 5, M.K. Road, Mindspace Airoli Camp, Plot No. Mumbai - 400 020. 3, Gat No. 95, Kalwa Trans, Thane Creek, Midc Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan/Gir No. Aabck4601P

…od of accounting regularly employed may be discarded only if, in the opinion of the taxing authorities, income of the trade cannot be properly deduced therefrom. He further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. TISCO, 106 ITR 363 (Bom), wherein also, Page 26 of 44 27 Assessment year: - 2009-10 similar view was taken. In support of this proposition, he also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd., 312 ITR 254 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as under:- ""For the reasons gi…