Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys

211 ITR 35High Court1995#9528 most cited

What is Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys authority for?

The offence of concealment of income involves a direct attempt to hide an item or portion of income from tax authorities, and does not apply to the admission or rejection of a claim which can be a matter of perception.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys · 211 ITR 35 · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · hiding income · subjective exercise · admission of claim · rejection of claim

Judgments citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1502/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Superfine Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna, Nehru Sahakar Marge, jaipur. बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle6, Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALCS0201P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assess…

M/S. Intercontinental Hotels Group India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2188/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139(4)Section 195Section 271Section 40

…ncome’ or ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the words ‘conceal’ means to hide, to keep secret. In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys Limited reported in [1995] 211 ITR 35, it was held by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court that the offence of concealment is thus a direct 8 attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income-tax authorities”. The admission or rejection of a claim is a subjective exercise and whether a claim is accepted or rejected has nothing to do with furnishing of i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is treated as infructuous owing to the adjudication on merits of the case

ITA 747/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 747/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Vs M/S Honda Trading Corporation Circle-11(1), India Pvt. Ltd., Sigma Centre, A- New Delhi 27, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch5556J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…017 Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. any inaccurate particulars of income. For this proposition, the assessee has relied on the following judicial decisions: " K.C Builders Vs ACIT (265ITR 562) (SC) " CIT Vs Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. (1995) 211 ITR 35 (Orissa HC) " Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Santhosh Financiers (2001) 247 ITR 742 (Kerala) 7. In connection with the penalty levied, we have perused the observation of the ITAT with regard to the foreign exchange fluctuation, which is as under: “21. From the above submissions and car…

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinamra Universal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…evels and hence penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) in their case should not be levied. For the same, they relied upon the decision given in the case of 124 ITR 15 - Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. (SC), 168 ITR 705 (SC) (Sir Shadilal Sugar & Gen, Mills Ltd. v/s. CIT), 211 ITR 35 (Orissa High Court), Hindustan Steel v/s. State of Orissa - 83 ITR 26 (SC), CIT vs. Smt. Bimladevi Sharma - 192 ITR 482 (Parna), CIT vs Bombay Pipe Traders - 213 ITR 282 (Born), ACIT vs. Kalpaka Baxar - 46 ITD 221 - ITAT Cochin Bench, Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. 1986 (157) - ITR 0822 DEL, 181 ITR 410 (MP) (1990) 6 M/s. Vina…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. Akruti City Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4346/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5355 To 5359/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2005-06) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Tax – Central Circle-36, Vs. Room No.11,Aayakar Bhavan, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E),Mumbai-400093 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4346/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt.Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., Income Tax – Mumbai. Vs. Central Circle-36, Mumbai. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaaca6101D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S S KemwalFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…port of his contentions relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (Supreme Court). (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) and the decision in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys( 1995) 211 ITR 35 Orissa. Finally, the ld.AR submitted that since all the facts relating to non-allocation of expenses were duly stated and disclosed and were inconformity with the stand of the assessee accepted by the revenue and also as per the various accounting Standards. In respect of reduction in stock in trade to the extent of 10% was revenue neutral as ulti…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. Ackruti City Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5359/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5355 To 5359/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2005-06) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Tax – Central Circle-36, Vs. Room No.11,Aayakar Bhavan, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E),Mumbai-400093 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4346/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt.Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., Income Tax – Mumbai. Vs. Central Circle-36, Mumbai. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaaca6101D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S S KemwalFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…port of his contentions relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (Supreme Court). (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) and the decision in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys( 1995) 211 ITR 35 Orissa. Finally, the ld.AR submitted that since all the facts relating to non-allocation of expenses were duly stated and disclosed and were inconformity with the stand of the assessee accepted by the revenue and also as per the various accounting Standards. In respect of reduction in stock in trade to the extent of 10% was revenue neutral as ulti…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. Ackruti City Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5358/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5355 To 5359/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2005-06) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Tax – Central Circle-36, Vs. Room No.11,Aayakar Bhavan, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E),Mumbai-400093 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4346/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt.Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., Income Tax – Mumbai. Vs. Central Circle-36, Mumbai. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaaca6101D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S S KemwalFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…port of his contentions relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (Supreme Court). (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) and the decision in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys( 1995) 211 ITR 35 Orissa. Finally, the ld.AR submitted that since all the facts relating to non-allocation of expenses were duly stated and disclosed and were inconformity with the stand of the assessee accepted by the revenue and also as per the various accounting Standards. In respect of reduction in stock in trade to the extent of 10% was revenue neutral as ulti…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. Ackruti City Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5357/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5355 To 5359/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2005-06) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Tax – Central Circle-36, Vs. Room No.11,Aayakar Bhavan, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E),Mumbai-400093 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4346/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt.Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., Income Tax – Mumbai. Vs. Central Circle-36, Mumbai. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaaca6101D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S S KemwalFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…port of his contentions relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (Supreme Court). (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) and the decision in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys( 1995) 211 ITR 35 Orissa. Finally, the ld.AR submitted that since all the facts relating to non-allocation of expenses were duly stated and disclosed and were inconformity with the stand of the assessee accepted by the revenue and also as per the various accounting Standards. In respect of reduction in stock in trade to the extent of 10% was revenue neutral as ulti…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. Ackruti City Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5356/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5355 To 5359/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2005-06) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Tax – Central Circle-36, Vs. Room No.11,Aayakar Bhavan, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E),Mumbai-400093 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4346/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt.Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., Income Tax – Mumbai. Vs. Central Circle-36, Mumbai. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaaca6101D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S S KemwalFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…port of his contentions relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (Supreme Court). (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) and the decision in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys( 1995) 211 ITR 35 Orissa. Finally, the ld.AR submitted that since all the facts relating to non-allocation of expenses were duly stated and disclosed and were inconformity with the stand of the assessee accepted by the revenue and also as per the various accounting Standards. In respect of reduction in stock in trade to the extent of 10% was revenue neutral as ulti…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. Ackruti City Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5355/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5355 To 5359/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2005-06) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Tax – Central Circle-36, Vs. Room No.11,Aayakar Bhavan, Road No.7, Marol, Midc, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E),Mumbai-400093 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4346/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt.Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Ackruti City Ltd., Income Tax – Mumbai. Vs. Central Circle-36, Mumbai. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaaca6101D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S S KemwalFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…port of his contentions relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (Supreme Court). (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) and the decision in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys( 1995) 211 ITR 35 Orissa. Finally, the ld.AR submitted that since all the facts relating to non-allocation of expenses were duly stated and disclosed and were inconformity with the stand of the assessee accepted by the revenue and also as per the various accounting Standards. In respect of reduction in stock in trade to the extent of 10% was revenue neutral as ulti…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3848/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3848/Del /2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 The D.C.I.T Vs. M/s SRF Limited Central Circle – 9(1) Block C, Sector - 45 New Delhi Gurgaon PAN : AAACS 0206 P [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 09.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 19.02.2016 Appellant by : Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. Shri Tarun Pandey, Adv ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of…

Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys (211 ITR 35) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax