Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works v. CIT

275 ITR 496High Court2005#4904 most cited

What is Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting, a statutory liability is incurred and becomes deductible at the time it is raised or accrued, irrespective of whether a dispute is raised later. An appellate authority admitting additional evidence must record reasons and provide an opportunity for the Assessing Officer to respond.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. CIT · 275 ITR 496 · 3 SCC 659 · mercantile system of accounting · accrual of liability · deduction of expenses · additional evidence · Rule 46A · section 143(2) · section 143(3)

Also reported as

3 SCC 659

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

application of incomeappeal before the tribunalprevious yeartransfersection 14indiatotal incomedocumentinterest

Judgments citing Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works v. CIT

Anand Palanisami, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1854/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

Anand Palanisami, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1853/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

Anand Palanisami, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1852/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…, the appellant’s request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A is hereby rejected’’. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of…

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi, XI & Anr

The appeal is allowed but, in the circumstances, with no order as to

ITA/161/2016HC Delhi19 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 5

…s that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. CIT (1997) 3 SCC 659 SC it was explained by referring to the decisions in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 3 SCC 252 and CIT v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 277 that “when the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, in case of sales tax payable by the assessee, the liability to pay sales tax would accrue the moment the dealer made sales…