International Forest Co. v. CIT

101 ITR 721High Court1975#2114 most cited

What is International Forest Co. v. CIT authority for?

In a best judgment assessment, tax authorities cannot act arbitrarily or base conclusions solely on guesswork; additions must be supported by evidence or material on record, and principles of natural justice require communicating adverse material to the assessee.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

International Forest Co. v. CIT · 101 ITR 721 · best judgment assessment · section 142(3) · section 143(3) · natural justice · communication of adverse material · arbitrary additions · guesswork · evidence · onus of proof · audi alteram partem

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 142(3)section 106section 131(1)(d)third party informationsection 114preponderance of probabilityonus of prooflegal representativesection 145aaudi alteram partemlive linkbest judgment assessment

Judgments citing International Forest Co. v. CIT

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…n12 ITR 458 (Lah)) to the assessee and if this is not done, the principles of natural justice stand\nviolated (KishinchandChellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); ITO (Addl) v Ponkunnam\nTraders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker); International Forest Co. V. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K);\nSTO v Uttareswari Rice Mills (1973) 89 ITR 6 (SC); Motipur Zamindari Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ag ITO\n(1972) 83 ITR 778 (Pat); CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449 (SC),\nHarmukhraiDulichand v CIT (1928) 3 ITC 198 (Cal.).\nThis requirement of pre-communication to the Assessee did not find mention in the pre-\n1961 Act, but court…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, CC-2 v. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar v. DCIT, Central Circle-II Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appel…

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, CC-2 v. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar v. DCIT, Central Circle-II Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. TAN/PAN: AEMPA0823R (Appel…

HEERA LAL KASARA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 303/Jodh/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Heera Lal Kasara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 386, Udaipur Pran Group of Publicity, Ward 2(1), Near Alok School, Sector-11, Udaipur. Hiran Magri, Udaipur. PAN No. ACAPK9375L Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Amit Kothari, C.A. Sh. Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 25/06/2025 ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee again…

SATYA NARAYAN ,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1434/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1434/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Satya Narayan बनाम Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Shiv Charan Lal Satya Vs. Ward -1, Narayan, Navin Mandi Yard, Nadbai, Bharatpur Bharatpur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPN9055M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ssment, there is always a certain degree of guess work but at the same time authorities should not act in an arbitrary manner and must take an effort to compute an honest and fair estimate of the income of the assessee. International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J & K). - Even if the ITO considered the material placed before him by the assessee to be unreliable keeping in view the comparative statement of accounts of the previous years, he cannot proceed to make an arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guesswork. He ought to have related his estimate to some evidence or material on the re…

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144Section 145

…haraja Shri B.P. Singh Deo (1970) 76 IT 690 (SC): Brij Bhusan Lal Pardaman Kumar v. CIT (1978) 115 TIR 524 (SC); Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam RVS and Sons Dairy Farm v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 764 (Mad): International Forest Co v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K): M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Ker); Ramchandra Ramnivas v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 501 (Orissa Action Electricals v. Deputy CII [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (Gauhati) indicate that the AO is not fettered by any technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and he is entitled to ac…

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 22/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A. L. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER (Physical Court Hearing) Sl. ITA No. Asst. Year Name of Appellant Name of Respondent No. 1. 87/SRT/2017 2007-08 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Rajesh Kumar Pamecha, Surat. Pamecha Bhawan, Shitala Mata Ki Gali, Bijai Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. PAN: AEZPP6573L 2. 15/SRT/2020 2008-09 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, 6/1862-63, 3rd Floor, Office Surat. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Balisheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. PAN: BCSPS0173F 3. 16/SRT/2020 2009-10 The…

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A. L. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER (Physical Court Hearing) Sl. ITA No. Asst. Year Name of Appellant Name of Respondent No. 1. 87/SRT/2017 2007-08 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Rajesh Kumar Pamecha, Surat. Pamecha Bhawan, Shitala Mata Ki Gali, Bijai Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. PAN: AEZPP6573L 2. 15/SRT/2020 2008-09 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, 6/1862-63, 3rd Floor, Office Surat. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Balisheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. PAN: BCSPS0173F 3. 16/SRT/2020 2009-10 The…

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 16/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A. L. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER (Physical Court Hearing) Sl. ITA No. Asst. Year Name of Appellant Name of Respondent No. 1. 87/SRT/2017 2007-08 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Rajesh Kumar Pamecha, Surat. Pamecha Bhawan, Shitala Mata Ki Gali, Bijai Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. PAN: AEZPP6573L 2. 15/SRT/2020 2008-09 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, 6/1862-63, 3rd Floor, Office Surat. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Balisheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. PAN: BCSPS0173F 3. 16/SRT/2020 2009-10 The…

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 15/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A. L. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER (Physical Court Hearing) Sl. ITA No. Asst. Year Name of Appellant Name of Respondent No. 1. 87/SRT/2017 2007-08 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Rajesh Kumar Pamecha, Surat. Pamecha Bhawan, Shitala Mata Ki Gali, Bijai Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. PAN: AEZPP6573L 2. 15/SRT/2020 2008-09 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, 6/1862-63, 3rd Floor, Office Surat. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Balisheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. PAN: BCSPS0173F 3. 16/SRT/2020 2009-10 The…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

ITA 87/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A. L. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER (Physical Court Hearing) Sl. ITA No. Asst. Year Name of Appellant Name of Respondent No. 1. 87/SRT/2017 2007-08 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Rajesh Kumar Pamecha, Surat. Pamecha Bhawan, Shitala Mata Ki Gali, Bijai Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. PAN: AEZPP6573L 2. 15/SRT/2020 2008-09 The ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, 6/1862-63, 3rd Floor, Office Surat. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Balisheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. PAN: BCSPS0173F 3. 16/SRT/2020 2009-10 The…

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…1955) 28 ITR 753, Madura Knitting Co.vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 BansidarOnkarmal v CIT 23 ITR 35 12. The courts have held that a low G.P. rate may not per se lead to an inference that the accounts are false. Case Laws. i) International Forest Co. vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) (727) Mere low yield cannot be taken as indication of suppression of sales by the assessee. ii) R.B. BansailalAbirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 260 (Bom) (282) The Assessee has made genuine sales, the AO erred in considering deviation in sales rate of silver and gold as compared to average market rate more so ignori…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SUPER IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 261/RPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit-4(1), Raipur Vs M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.13/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.261/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…ined or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse, the same is not allowable. In the case of International Forest Co. Vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K HC) hon'ble High Court has held that even, if the ITO considered the material placed by the assessee to be unreliable keeping in view the comparative statement of accounts of the previous years, he could not proceed to make an arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guess work. He ought to have related his estimate to some evide…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…hing of the sort. Its ITA Nos. 5231, 5392 & 5579/Del/2011 13 Majestic Properties findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this court.” These cases have been followed by several High Courts International Forest Co Vs. CIT 101 ITR 721 (J & K). There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment Dakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775, 82 (SC). Further reliance is placed on following cases that no addition could be made merely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers: Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT TTJ 064 786 (Del) ACIT Vs. Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TT…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…hing of the sort. Its ITA Nos. 5231, 5392 & 5579/Del/2011 13 Majestic Properties findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this court.” These cases have been followed by several High Courts International Forest Co Vs. CIT 101 ITR 721 (J & K). There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment Dakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775, 82 (SC). Further reliance is placed on following cases that no addition could be made merely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers: Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT TTJ 064 786 (Del) ACIT Vs. Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TT…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…hing of the sort. Its ITA Nos. 5231, 5392 & 5579/Del/2011 13 Majestic Properties findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this court.” These cases have been followed by several High Courts International Forest Co Vs. CIT 101 ITR 721 (J & K). There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment Dakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775, 82 (SC). Further reliance is placed on following cases that no addition could be made merely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers: Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT TTJ 064 786 (Del) ACIT Vs. Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TT…

SHRI PATEL ENTERPRISES,,KORBA(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- KORBA,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in terms of our observations as discussed herein above

ITA 112/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.112/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) M/S Patel Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-Korba A-3, Vikas Complex, First Floor, Power House Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan No. : Aajfm 0718 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 251

…r material on record as it is now well settled that if the profits shown by the assessee in his return are not acceptable, it is for the taxing authorities to prove that the assessee has made more profits than returned. [International Forest Co. v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J & K)]. Since this was not proved against the assessee on the strength of evidence, the AO's action in this regard is opposed to the factual and legal standards enumerated above. During the Assessment order itself learned AO mentioned in PARA- 4 (Page-4 of Assessment Order) that as under: - "4. The aforesaid submission of the assessee has been…

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 1/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…0) 38 ITR 152 (Ker), M. Durai Raj v/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker), it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected where profits disclosed were low and there was no stock register. • In International forest company V/s CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected due to omission of all alleged sale, denied to have been made by the assessee, without verifying it by examining the supposed purchaser. • In Shambhu Ratan Shailender Kumar V/s CST, (1972) 30 STC 1972 (All), Sitaram Rajaram V/s CST (1976), 38 STC 554 (All), it was…

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 279/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…0) 38 ITR 152 (Ker), M. Durai Raj v/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker), it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected where profits disclosed were low and there was no stock register. • In International forest company V/s CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected due to omission of all alleged sale, denied to have been made by the assessee, without verifying it by examining the supposed purchaser. • In Shambhu Ratan Shailender Kumar V/s CST, (1972) 30 STC 1972 (All), Sitaram Rajaram V/s CST (1976), 38 STC 554 (All), it was…

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 116/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…0) 38 ITR 152 (Ker), M. Durai Raj v/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker), it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected where profits disclosed were low and there was no stock register. • In International forest company V/s CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) it was held that the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected due to omission of all alleged sale, denied to have been made by the assessee, without verifying it by examining the supposed purchaser. • In Shambhu Ratan Shailender Kumar V/s CST, (1972) 30 STC 1972 (All), Sitaram Rajaram V/s CST (1976), 38 STC 554 (All), it was…

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

International Forest Co. v. CIT (101 ITR 721) — Cited in 54 Judgments | BharatTax