Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries

1 SCC 673Reported decision2011#5386 most cited

What is Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries authority for?

Whether income is to be determined on an estimate basis is a question of fact.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries · 1 SCC 673 · estimate basis · question of fact · profit determination · Tribunal decision

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Judgments citing Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kalawati Sharma, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalincome Tax Officer, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 250Section 69C

…ed 06.04.2022 passed in the case of Sanjay Chhabra (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:- “Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi reported in (2011) 1 SCC 673, as to what would be substantial question of law, only demolishes the case of the appellant herein because on ITO vs. Kalawati Sharma principles, which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as contained in Para 19 to 23 thereof, present is not a case where the finding of the Tribunal suffers from ignorance of any materi…

Sumit Goel, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68Section 69C

…IR 1995 SC 2109 would submit that the Tribunal has not examined the case on the touchstone of human probability. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi reported in (2011) 1 SCC 673, as to what would be substantial question of law, only demolishes the case of the appellant herein because on principles, which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as contained in Para 19 to 23 thereof, present is not a case where the finding of the Tribunal suffers from ignorance of any material evidence or based on…

Sap Labs India Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 6 (1) (1) Bangalore

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-008463-008463 - 2022Supreme Court19 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

…strated perversity in its finding, interference therewith by the High Court is not warranted. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel/counsel have relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673 and Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. CA 8463/2022 ETC. Page 15 of 29 Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314. 3.5 It is further submitted that perversity, if any, not only should be specifically alleged in the appeal before the High Court but also, as held by the High Court in the case of Softbrands I…

M/S Goodwil Traders, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Srinagar

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 30/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

…ed on estimate basis. The Hon’ble High Court held that “Needless to mention that the estimate is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries, 2 SCC 758, Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT, 1 SCC 673; New Plaza Restaurant v. ITO 309 ITR 259 (HP); and Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj.).” Similar view was reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in plethora of cases to name a few CIT Vs Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. 177 ITR 86 (All.) ; CIT Vs Surjit Singh 210 ITR 83 (All.) in which case the order of the Tribunal was upheld where it has a…

Goodwill Traders, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 327/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

…ed on estimate basis. The Hon’ble High Court held that “Needless to mention that the estimate is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries, 2 SCC 758, Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT, 1 SCC 673; New Plaza Restaurant v. ITO 309 ITR 259 (HP); and Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj.).” Similar view was reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in plethora of cases to name a few CIT Vs Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. 177 ITR 86 (All.) ; CIT Vs Surjit Singh 210 ITR 83 (All.) in which case the order of the Tribunal was upheld where it has a…

Goodwill Traders., Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 326/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

…ed on estimate basis. The Hon’ble High Court held that “Needless to mention that the estimate is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries, 2 SCC 758, Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT, 1 SCC 673; New Plaza Restaurant v. ITO 309 ITR 259 (HP); and Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj.).” Similar view was reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in plethora of cases to name a few CIT Vs Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. 177 ITR 86 (All.) ; CIT Vs Surjit Singh 210 ITR 83 (All.) in which case the order of the Tribunal was upheld where it has a…

Shree Sudhakar Pandey, Sonbhedra vs. ACIT Range-III, Mirzapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7/ALLD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Sudhakar Pandey, Civil Line, V Acit, Robertsganj, Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh- . Range-Iii, Mirzapur, U.P. 231216 Pan-Alds03711B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 44A

…************************************************************ 24. Needless to mention that the estimate is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner (Custom) vs. Stoneman Marble [(2011) 2 SCC 758], Vijay K. Talwar vs. CIT [(2011) 1 SCC 673]; New Plaza Restaurant vs. ITO [309 ITR 259 (HP)]; and Sanjay Oil Cake vs. CIT [316 ITR 274 (Gujarat)]. 26. In the instant cases, when the books of accounts were rejected, then the assessee is not entitled for the depreciation separately on the same set of books of accounts which have no value after its rejection. Hence, we modify the impugned orde…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Syngene

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the

ITA/184/2016HC Karnataka02 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 260Section 260A

…rial evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673 supra as well as in ‘UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN’, (2012) 8 SCC 148 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, (2016) 2 SCC 556. It is pertinent to mention here that even in the memo of appeal, the revenue has not pointed out any perversity 20 in respect of concurrent finding of fact recorded in favour of the assessee. In view of pre…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd

ITA/351/2016HC Karnataka09 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260

…of fact is demonstrated to be perverse, this Court in exercise of power under Section 260-A of the Act, would not interfere with the findings of the Court. (SEE: ‘HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL’, (2006) 5 SCC 545; 'VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT', (2011) 1 SCC 673; 'UNION OF INDIA VS. IBRAHIM 7 UDDIN', (2012) 8 SCC 148 and 'MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT', (2016) 2 SCC 556. For the aforementioned reasons, the third substantial question of law is also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in this ap…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Jindal Aluminium Limited

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/450/2013HC Karnataka08 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 70Section 80I

…rial evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673 supra as well as in ‘UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN’, (2012) 8 SCC 148 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, (2016) 2 SCC 556. 15 9. Now we may advert to the third substantial question of law. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has invested a sum of Rs.2…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 306/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE:SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) Sh. Shobha Ram Sharma, Contractor, Vs.. ACIT,Circle-3, AA-2, Chandanvan, Mathura. Mathura. PAN:AABPS2246F (Appellant) Respondent) I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) ACIT-3, Vs.. Sh. Shobha Ram Sharma, Contractor, Rahika Bihar, Delhi Bye Pass AA-2, Chandanvan, Mathura. Mathura. PAN:AABPS2246F (Appellant) Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv.. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 296/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE:SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) Sh. Shobha Ram Sharma, Contractor, Vs.. ACIT,Circle-3, AA-2, Chandanvan, Mathura. Mathura. PAN:AABPS2246F (Appellant) Respondent) I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) ACIT-3, Vs.. Sh. Shobha Ram Sharma, Contractor, Rahika Bihar, Delhi Bye Pass AA-2, Chandanvan, Mathura. Mathura. PAN:AABPS2246F (Appellant) Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv.. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pangea3 Legal Database P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1923/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Singh-Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…ch conclusions. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Authorities below, cannot be re- appreciated by this Court in the present Appeal. 7. In this connection, the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 1 SCC 673 has observed at Para 23 thus : "23. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal princip…

Pangea Legal Database Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Singh-Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…ch conclusions. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Authorities below, cannot be re- appreciated by this Court in the present Appeal. 7. In this connection, the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 1 SCC 673 has observed at Para 23 thus : "23. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal princip…

International Speciality Products (India) P Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1279/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ch conclusions. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Authorities below, cannot be re- appreciated by this Court in the present Appeal. 7. In this connection, the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in the case of Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 1 SCC 673 has observed at Para 23 thus : "23. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal princip…

Sri.Joy K.V., Trichur vs. The ACIT, Cir-2(1), RG-2, Trichur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay

ITA 207/COCH/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.207 /Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2000-01 Shri K.V. Joy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Koonan House, Mission Quarters, Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Thrissur-680 01. Range-2, Thrissur [Pan : Aqspk 9358H]

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)

…see. In our opinion, when the income is estimated as above, it is not proper to levy penalty as held by different High Courts in the following cases: 1) New Plaza Restaurant vs. ITO (301 ITR 259) 2) Sajay Ikake vs. CIT (360 ITR 271) 3) Vijay K.Talwar vs. CIT (1 SCC 673) 4) Commissioner Customs vs. Stone and Marble (2011) (12 SCC 758) 5) CIT vs. Target Construction Co. Ltd. 231 taxman 55 (All.) 4.2 Further, it was held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Bans Singh (276 ITR 351), that when income is estimated by different authorities right from Assessing Officer to Tribunal and it was a simple…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Softbrands India

ITA/536/2015HC Karnataka25 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…1/80 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/W I.T.A.No.537/2015 I.T.A.No.536/2015 Between: 1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Buildings, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., Prestige Obelisk, Level-9 Kasturba Road Bangalore-560001 PAN:AAFCS9041K.…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Softbrands India

ITA/537/2015HC Karnataka25 Jun 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…1/80 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.536/2015 C/W I.T.A.No.537/2015 I.T.A.No.536/2015 Between: 1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Buildings, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: M/s. Softbrands India P. Ltd., Prestige Obelisk, Level-9 Kasturba Road Bangalore-560001 PAN:AAFCS9041K.…

Smt. Savita Goel, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3794/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2009-10 Savita Goel Aop, Income Tax Officer, 444, Bhrampuri, Vs. Ward-1(1), Muzaffarnagar (Up). Muzaffarnagar Pan : Aacas 1442 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 Savita Goel, Income Tax Officer, 444, Brahmpuri, Vs. Ward-2(3), Muzaffarnagar (Up). Muzaffarnagar Pan : Aacas 1442 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prem Prakash, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…making an addition of the income on estimate basis was reversed by the Tribunal. Further, such addition made on estimate basis is a question of fact as has been held in Commissioner (Custom Vs. Stoneman Marble, (2011) 2 SCC 758, Vijay K.Talwar Vs. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673, New Plaza Restaurant vs. ITO, 309 ITR 259 (HP) and Sanjay Oil Cake Vs. CIT, 316, ITR 274 (Gujrat)." 8. In the case of Prayag Wines (supra), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Vishnbu Chandra Vipin Chandra, 50 STC 345, wherein the Court held that failure to issue cash memos was…

Savita Goel AOP, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1666/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2009-10 Savita Goel Aop, Income Tax Officer, 444, Bhrampuri, Vs. Ward-1(1), Muzaffarnagar (Up). Muzaffarnagar Pan : Aacas 1442 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 Savita Goel, Income Tax Officer, 444, Brahmpuri, Vs. Ward-2(3), Muzaffarnagar (Up). Muzaffarnagar Pan : Aacas 1442 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prem Prakash, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…making an addition of the income on estimate basis was reversed by the Tribunal. Further, such addition made on estimate basis is a question of fact as has been held in Commissioner (Custom Vs. Stoneman Marble, (2011) 2 SCC 758, Vijay K.Talwar Vs. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673, New Plaza Restaurant vs. ITO, 309 ITR 259 (HP) and Sanjay Oil Cake Vs. CIT, 316, ITR 274 (Gujrat)." 8. In the case of Prayag Wines (supra), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Vishnbu Chandra Vipin Chandra, 50 STC 345, wherein the Court held that failure to issue cash memos was…

Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries (1 SCC 673) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax