How many judgments cite Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

629 judgments on BharatTax cite Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (82 ITR 363), spanning 1998 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 37(1), Section 43B, Section 14A, Section 115JB.

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

82 ITR 363Supreme Court of India1971#91 most cited

What is Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

629

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1998 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 82 ITR 363 SC · tax liability · accounting entries · books of account · Income-tax Act provisions · tax law vs accounting · section 145 · mercantile system · book profits · section 115JB · section 37(1) · section 43B

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 37(1)Section 43B Section 14A Section 115JB Section 143(1)Section 145

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc section 80hh book profits revenue expenditure section 80ia mercantile system of accounting capital expenditure section 115j section 80i disallowance under section 14a section 37(1)section 115jb

Judgments citing Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

…ann.com 361) wherein it was held that deduction allowable under the Act cannot be denied merely because a different treatment was given in the books of account. 61. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions:  Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (82 ITR 363) (SC)  CIT v. India Discount Co. Ltd. (75 ITR 191) (SC)  Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (227 ITR 172) (SC)  CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (126 Taxman 435) (Cal HC)  CIT v. Sakthi Soyas Ltd. (283 ITR 94) (Mad HC)  DCIT v. Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd. (130 taxmann.com 223) (Mum Trib.) 62. It was also submitted that i…

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3510/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

…ann.com 361) wherein it was held that deduction allowable under the Act cannot be denied merely because a different treatment was given in the books of account. 61. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions: • Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (82 ITR 363) (SC) • CIT v. India Discount Co. Ltd. (75 ITR 191) (SC) • Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (227 ITR 172) (SC) • CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (126 Tахтап 435) (Cal HC) • CIT v. Sakthi Soyas Ltd. (283 ITR 94) (Mad HC) • DCIT v. Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd. (130 taxmann.com 223) (Mum Trib.) 62. It was also submitted that i…

CISCO COMMERCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194JSection 263Section 40

…efore the above decision do not apply to the facts of the present case before us. 38. The learned authorized representative further referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Kedarnath jute Manufacturing Co Ltd versus CIT Central in [82 ITR 363] to canvas the issue that liability incurred or sales made during the accounting period is deductible even if such entries made in the books of accounts. We do not find that above decision apply to the facts of the case because here the provisions are made by the assessee in the books of accounts reducing the sales by the refund liability and the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

…entries in the books of account does not determine the treatment of an expenditure for the purpose of computing income under the provision of the Act. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC). TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. 57.3. Further, in relation to section 44 of the Act read with First Schedule, reliance is placed on the Assessee's own decision for AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 1718/Mum/2020) by the co-ordinate bench wherein it had taken a purposive interpretation of Rule 5 of the First Schedule and allowed deduction of expens…

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 1450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

…olled entities, pooling of interest method to be followed. 11) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363(SC), held as under. "Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter." 12) Without prejudice to the other…

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 903/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat. Considering The Same, The Order Passed By Itat Was Recalled & The Appeal Of The Assessee Fixed For Adjudication Afresh On Merits, Vide Order In Ma No.94/Ahd/2025, Dated 18.12.2025. The Present Appeal, Accordingly, Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…writ petition, is not unascertained liability for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s 115J. Following decisions are also relied upon: CIT Vs. Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co.(P) Ltd. (1999) 105 Taxman 737 Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co.Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1971), 82 ITR 363 (SC) ED Sassoon & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) Calcutta Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) Eastern Power Distribution Co. of AP Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2011) 139 TTJ 94 (Visakha) CIT VS ILPEA Paramount P. Ltd. (2011), 336 ITR 54 (Delhi) Dresser Valve India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2009) 30 SOT 495 (Mum)  No petition is filed by the Company in thi…

DEVADAS ANUP,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1933/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 250

…any other person. The plea that profit belonged to the merchandiser is therefore not acceptable, as it would otherwise result in complete escapement of income from taxation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC)] laid down that entries in the books of account are not determinative of tax liability. The real nature of income and accrual governs taxability, not the manner of recording. 7.4 While the assessee has argued that similar treatment was accepted in earlier years, it is however not known whether any scrutiny assessments were carried out in thos…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6005/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Income Tax R. No. 126, Services Limited Mahindra Towers, 4Th Floor, 570 P.B. Marg, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharhi Karve Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400018. Pan/Gir No: Aaacm2931R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)Section 68

…wing decisions: (i) PCIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. (Appeal No.249 of 2017 dated 02.04.2019), (ii) ACIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. (ITA No.3070/MUM/2013 dated 31.08.2015), (iii) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC), (iv) Gruh Finance Ltd.(supra), (v) CIT vs. Secure Meters Ltd. (2008) 175 taxmann 567 ITA No.6005/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited (Raj.) and (vi) shanders Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 531/Bang/2017, dated 26.05.2017. 6. We have heard both parties and perused the materials on record. We have a…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

…ons, le one accounted and one unaccounted. It is a long-settled issue that entries in books of accounts are not conclusive for taxation purposes. Reliance is duly placed in the decision of Apex court Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (82 ITR 363): "Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of its right nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. The assessee who was maintaining accounts on the mercan…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

UBS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CREDIT SUISSE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD),PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE - 1, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1407/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ubs Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Credit S. Commissioner Of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground To 5Th Floors In Wing 1, 3Rd To 5Th Floor In Wing 2, Kharadi Midc Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabcu8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal - Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.1407/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 UBS Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Credit s. Commissioner of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, EON Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground to 5th Floors in Wing 1, 3rd to 5th Floor in Wing 2, Kharadi MIDC Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. PAN: AABCU8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Reven…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…6 It is also submitted that entries in service tax returns are determinative cannot be a conclusive basis to compute the income of an assessee. Reliance is placed on following judgments: i) ITA No. 589/2011 (Del) dated 30.09.2011 CIT vs. Arvind Kumar Jain ii) 82 ITR 363 (SC) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. ii) iii) 227 ITR 172 (SC) Tuticorn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 18 iv) 285 ITR 221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd 17 It is submitted that it is a case of lack of inquiry. In this regard appellant company seeks to place reliance on following judgments: ⅰ) 361 ITR 10 (Del) CIT v. Gangeshwar…

KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4347/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.4346 & 4347/Del/2024 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2017-18 Keysight Technologies India Vs. DCIT, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-13(1), Non-Heirarchial, 2nd Floor, Delhi. Plot No.14, Omax Square Community Centre, Jasola, South East Delhi – 110 025. Delhi. PAN: AAFCK4584R Assessee by : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA…

KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4346/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 43B

SARVODAYA SAMAJ KALYAN SANSTHAN,JAMUI vs. CPC , BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 563/PAT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…osition that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Parekh Bros. v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 105 (Ker)). Also see: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC). Proceedings under the Act, it may be clarified, are not in the nature of a lis (Gadgil (S.S.) v. Lal & Co. [1964] 53 ITR 321 (SC)). 14. For that the appellant is an accredited institution supported by Government, alternate claim for exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad), the same may be appreciated, is not a new claim, but incidental to its activity…

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), RAJKOT , RAJKOT

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.196/RJT/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Bank Ltd., Income-tax, circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFUPS2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. AR Responden…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…settled position of law that nomenclature in books of accounts are not decisive or conclusive. V. The appellant places reliance on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC). The appellant also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bangalore Clothing co. (2003) 260 ITR 371 (Bom.) wherein it was held as under - 8. However, we find that the Department just looks at the nomenclature of the receipt and if it finds that the nomenclature is rent, interest, commission th…

Showing 1–20 of 629 · Page 1 of 32

...