Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.K. Rice Mills

319 ITR 173High Court2009#20467 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.K. Rice Mills

ACIT, Sangrur vs. M/S Aggarsain Fibres Ltd., Samana

In the result, appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 829/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 145(3)

…ier years, the books of accounts cannot be rejected. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports (2010) 324 ITR 95 (Del) • CIT Vs. Faridabad Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 336 ITR 129(P&H) • CIT Vs. R.K. Rice Mills (2009) 319 ITR 173 (P&H) 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the arbitrary additions made by the A.O. 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case the A.O. invoked the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act and rejected the books of acco…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 233/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…These copious evidences were wrongly ignored by the AO. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 290 (Del) : (2007) 164 TAXMAN 529. 7.41. A careful reading of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.K. Rice Mills (2009) 319 ITR 173 : (2009) 185 TAXMAN 107 (P&H) the Hon‟ble High Court had upheld the deletion of addition and it leads to an irresistible conclusion that there cannot be any rejection of books of accounts merely because the yield declared by the assessee is lower in comparison to other assessees engaged in similar line of business. 7.42 The notoriety that appella…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 232/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…These copious evidences were wrongly ignored by the AO. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 290 (Del) : (2007) 164 TAXMAN 529. 7.41. A careful reading of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.K. Rice Mills (2009) 319 ITR 173 : (2009) 185 TAXMAN 107 (P&H) the Hon‟ble High Court had upheld the deletion of addition and it leads to an irresistible conclusion that there cannot be any rejection of books of accounts merely because the yield declared by the assessee is lower in comparison to other assessees engaged in similar line of business. 7.42 The notoriety that appella…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Lal Board Mills, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 562/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

…statement of the partner which is inherently deficient owing to the reasons discussed above, l am inclined to agree to the reliance placed by the appellant in the cases of Goojarmal Ganpat Rai Vs. CIT [268 ITR 191 - Delhi] & CIT Patiala Vs. R. K. Rice Mills [319 ITR 173 -P & H]. 7.3. I, therefore, hold that the assessing officer was not justified in making addition of Rs. 51,79,004/- u/s 69 on account of alleged unexplained purchases. I do not find any justification to sustain this addition of Rs. 51,79,004/-. Hence the appellant gets relief of Rs. 51,79,004/-. (Relief of Rs. 51,79,004/-)” We do not find any mat…