Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 4, Section 5, Section 9.

Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (60 ITR 41)

Q: What is Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot selectively accept parts of an assessee's statement that favour the revenue while disregarding parts favourable to the assessee. If an assessee presents all records, the AO must consider all explanations, not just pick and choose.

Q: How many judgments cite Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (60 ITR 41), spanning 2016 to 2025.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MGN AGRO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue has been rendered as dismissed, in terms\nof our aforesaid observations

ITA 3759/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…s no power to pick and choose part of the statement as correct\nwhich is favourable to revenue and ignoring the rest of the part of the statement in the\nsame answer and which is favourable to the assessee (Indore Malwa United Ltd. V.\nStatee of Madya Pradesh 60 ITR 41-SC).\nvi) In my opinion if the information of receipt of cheque of Rs.49.50 crore remains\nunproved, it is difficult to believe the receipt of the associated alleged cash component\nalso;\nvii) It is also a matter of fact that that the impugned land was not sold in the relevant\nprevious year and continued to figure in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03…

MANOJ KUMAR KHUBANI,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR 2 JDH, JODHPUR

In the result, stands ALLOWED

ITA 376/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…6 TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram SumnomalCavanduspur92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Liikmed Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43. 11 Manoj Kumar Khubani For the amount of Rs.50,000/- advanced to Asan Das, the source is out of profit on undisclosed sale offered for tax. Apart from the above referred source, the assessee had received back loans advanced alon…

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 8/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…above, there is nothing to even remotely indicate an element of bias as alleged by the appellant. 6.4 The reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. vs State of Madhya Pradesh [1996] reported in 60 ITR 41, is misconceived. The decision there was based on its own peculiar set of facts and has no application to the facts of the appeal under consideration. For this Bimal Paul, AYs: 2010-11 & 2011-12 proposition, it would be adequate to reproduce the following from the aforesaid decision: "The Assessing Officer, the Appellate Authority and the High Cou…

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…above, there is nothing to even remotely indicate an element of bias as alleged by the appellant. 6.4 The reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. vs State of Madhya Pradesh [1996] reported in 60 ITR 41, is misconceived. The decision there was based on its own peculiar set of facts and has no application to the facts of the appeal under consideration. For this Bimal Paul, AYs: 2010-11 & 2011-12 proposition, it would be adequate to reproduce the following from the aforesaid decision: "The Assessing Officer, the Appellate Authority and the High Cou…

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

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

ITA 340/JPR/2022[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2012-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram SumnomalCavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43…..” (PB 153) CIT vs. Silver Streak Trading Pvt. Ltd. 326 ITR 418 (Del) (PB 155-157) “11. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is not the case of the assessee that it ever receive…

AMAR SINGH SAHARAN,CHURU vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHURU

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

ITA 83/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradshri Amar Singh Saharan, Vs Ito, S/O-Shri Chimna Ram, Ward-2, Dhani-Asha, Tehsil- Churu Taranagar, Churu-331304. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Drbps4493E Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Amar Singh Saharan, vs ITO, S/o-Shri Chimna Ram, Ward-2, Dhani-Asha, Tehsil- Churu Taranagar, Churu-331304. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. DRBPS4493E Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, JCIT DR Date of hearing 23/03/2023 Date of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 04.06.2019. The assessee…

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,FATEHPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI (AO:ITO-2(4),FATEHPUR, FATEHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 19/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh ,Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…is not open to the Assessing Officer to pick & choose those which more favourable to the revenue, without considering the explanations of the assessee with regard to discrepancies in others" Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. versus State of Madhya Pradesh [1966] 60 ITR 41 (SC) CBDT Circular on Assessee's Rights There is an old Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No: 14 (XL-35) dated April 11, 1955. It states: "Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in 8 ITA No.19/Alld./2023 Assessment Y…

JAGMOHAN SINGH ARORA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No.4 raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 7196/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vranda U Matkarni- Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

…umb document which does not have any evidentiary value. In this case the document having cheque entry duly accepted by the appellate cannot be brushed aside as a dumb document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Indore Malwa United Mill Ltd. vs State of M.P 60 ITR 41 has held that a document has to be considered as a whole i.e. one part of the document cannot be relied upon and rest cannot be rejected. The argument with respect to categorization of seized document as or "loose paper" is also to be seen from the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Arun Muchhala [2017] 85 taxmann.com 306 (Bombay). The H…

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Milind Bhusare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…t cogent evidence to corroborate the evidence submitted by the petitioner. It is settled law that affidavit cannot be disregarded without effectively discrediting the same. PI refer Mehta Parekh Vs CIT, Bombay (30 ITR181.SC) & Indore Malwa Ltd Vs State of MP (60 ITR 41 (SC). It is settled law that averments of a duly sworn in affidavit are to be accepted as correct unless the same are rebutted by evidence. 19. Further nor AO or the CIT appeal is expert to decide about authenticity of signature of signatory to the document. Relying on claim of third party that it appears to br bogus, the quasijudicial authorities…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (3), BENGALURU vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTHA, CHICKAMANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1891/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2008-09 to 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Vs. Shri C.J Vishwanath, of Income-tax, Shanti Nivas, Circle-2(3), Chanapura Road, Kote, Bengaluru. Chickmagalur-577 101. PAN – ADAPV 3014 C REVENUE ASSESSEE Revenue by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR Assessee by : Shri Guruswamy H, ITP Date of hearing : 18.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These appeals by th…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1893/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2008-09 to 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Vs. Shri C.J Vishwanath, of Income-tax, Shanti Nivas, Circle-2(3), Chanapura Road, Kote, Bengaluru. Chickmagalur-577 101. PAN – ADAPV 3014 C REVENUE ASSESSEE Revenue by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR Assessee by : Shri Guruswamy H, ITP Date of hearing : 18.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These appeals by th…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHICKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1892/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2008-09 to 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Vs. Shri C.J Vishwanath, of Income-tax, Shanti Nivas, Circle-2(3), Chanapura Road, Kote, Bengaluru. Chickmagalur-577 101. PAN – ADAPV 3014 C REVENUE ASSESSEE Revenue by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR Assessee by : Shri Guruswamy H, ITP Date of hearing : 18.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These appeals by th…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANATH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1896/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2008-09 to 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Vs. Shri C.J Vishwanath, of Income-tax, Shanti Nivas, Circle-2(3), Chanapura Road, Kote, Bengaluru. Chickmagalur-577 101. PAN – ADAPV 3014 C REVENUE ASSESSEE Revenue by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR Assessee by : Shri Guruswamy H, ITP Date of hearing : 18.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These appeals by th…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1895/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2008-09 to 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Vs. Shri C.J Vishwanath, of Income-tax, Shanti Nivas, Circle-2(3), Chanapura Road, Kote, Bengaluru. Chickmagalur-577 101. PAN – ADAPV 3014 C REVENUE ASSESSEE Revenue by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR Assessee by : Shri Guruswamy H, ITP Date of hearing : 18.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These appeals by th…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1894/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2008-09 to 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Vs. Shri C.J Vishwanath, of Income-tax, Shanti Nivas, Circle-2(3), Chanapura Road, Kote, Bengaluru. Chickmagalur-577 101. PAN – ADAPV 3014 C REVENUE ASSESSEE Revenue by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR Assessee by : Shri Guruswamy H, ITP Date of hearing : 18.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These appeals by th…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 5138/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT, M/s. Maharaji Education Vs. Trust, Central Circle : 6, No. 1 – Santosh Nagar, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad – 201 009. PAN: AAATM5225F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, C. A. Department by: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]– DR Date of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date of pronouncement : 13/10/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is fi…

ASHOK KUMAR BANTHIA,BIKANER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavashok Kumar Banthia, Vs. D.C.I.T., Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Central Circle, Gangashahar, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aixpb 4919 N Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha, Adv. & Shri Sudarshan Jhabak, Ca. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Jaipur Dated 07/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Order Passed By The Assessing Authority & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal & Against The Law. 2. That The Order Is Illegal In View Of The Fact That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) As Well As The Assessing Authority Fails To Cross Examine The Deponent Of The Affidavits Submitted Before The Assessing Officer. In View Of Judgment Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court Delivered In The Case Of M/S Mehta Parekha & Co., The Contents Of The Affidavit Should Have Been Accepted. 3. That The Assessment Completed In The Hands Of The Assessee Is Not Justified Because The Amount Belongs To M/S Lux Industries Limited As Admitted By The Director Of The Company. Therefore, The Assessment Is Illegal.

For Appellant: “1. That the

Section 132Section 143(3)

…TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, 19 ITA 297/Jodh/2019 Ashok Kr. Banthia vs DCIT we are of the view that the amount seized from the assessee at the Delhi Ai…

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…compute real income in a fair manner, it was essential that receipts as well as expenses recorded on the same seized documents needs to be considered simultaneously. The CIT(A) observed that the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Mills (60 ITR 41) relied upon by the assessee supports the ground. According to the CIT(A), it would be totally arbitrary to treat the whole receipts shown on such documents to be income of the assessee for the simple reason that it would lead to unrealistic and hypothetical profit margins not existent in the line of business and cases comparable with the assessee…

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 509/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…compute real income in a fair manner, it was essential that receipts as well as expenses recorded on the same seized documents needs to be considered simultaneously. The CIT(A) observed that the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Mills (60 ITR 41) relied upon by the assessee supports the ground. According to the CIT(A), it would be totally arbitrary to treat the whole receipts shown on such documents to be income of the assessee for the simple reason that it would lead to unrealistic and hypothetical profit margins not existent in the line of business and cases comparable with the assessee…

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…compute real income in a fair manner, it was essential that receipts as well as expenses recorded on the same seized documents needs to be considered simultaneously. The CIT(A) observed that the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Mills (60 ITR 41) relied upon by the assessee supports the ground. According to the CIT(A), it would be totally arbitrary to treat the whole receipts shown on such documents to be income of the assessee for the simple reason that it would lead to unrealistic and hypothetical profit margins not existent in the line of business and cases comparable with the assessee…

Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh

What is Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MGN AGRO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

MANOJ KUMAR KHUBANI,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR 2 JDH, JODHPUR

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

AMAR SINGH SAHARAN,CHURU vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHURU

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,FATEHPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI (AO:ITO-2(4),FATEHPUR, FATEHPUR

JAGMOHAN SINGH ARORA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10 (1)(2), MUMBAI

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (3), BENGALURU vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTHA, CHICKAMANGALURU

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMANGALURU

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHICKAMANGALUR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANATH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

ASHOK KUMAR BANTHIA,BIKANER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM