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

654 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#89 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.

654

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 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

Read the full judgment

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

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3113/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…eduction. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that entries in the books of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of accou…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3112/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3111/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

M/S Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 5847/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

Shri Om Parkash Legal Heiar Smt Pushpa Verma, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 756/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

…the assessee’s accounts, i.e., as an outstanding; it being trite that the entries in the books of account are not conclusive or determinative of the matter (viz. Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). Why, if that be so, section 68 of the Act could not be countenanced; the credit in the assessee’s books of account may reflect the same as a liability, or as a receipt from another, or, for that matter, even by way of accretion to capital, i.e., as on capital account. Rather, the section becomes applicable only on account of the said credit…

Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4890/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4890/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) M/S. Pebble Bay Developers P. Ltd. Dcit 13(1)(2) 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raheja Chambers, Linking Road, बिाम/ Main Avenue, Santacruz (West) Mumbai Vs. Mumbai – 400054 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg1645E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 154Section 36Section 43B

…unt paid to BBMP, since, is related to the construction business, is allowable as business expenditure. In support of his contention the learned Authorized Representative relied upon following decisions. 1. Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd V/s. CIT. 1971, 82 ITR 363 (SC) 2. CIT V/s. Bharat Carbon and Ribban Mfg. Co. P. Ltd., 1999 239 ITR 505 (SC). 6 Pebble Bay Developers P. Ltd. 3. Mema Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. V/s. ACIT ITA no. 654/Mum/2011 dated 13.06.2016. 7. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer. 8. We have considered…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Ranjit Hanmantrao Mohite, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1253/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BathamFor Respondent: Shri Sanket Joshi

Section 143(3)

…(1994) 49 TTJ (Bang) 1. He further submitted that entries in the books of accounts are not determinative and for this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing & Co., Vs. CIT reported in (1971) 82 ITR 363. He thus supported the order of lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is the treatment of loss incurred on sale of shares. It is Revenue’s contention that the loss is short term capital loss as against assessee’s stand that the loss is business loss. It is an…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Arihant Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2946/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ounts, yet since its inception, the accounting treatment given to Badlapur land in its books of accounts is that of/as applicable to a capital asset (i.e.investment). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dearly held in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co.Ltd.vs. CIT [82 ITR 363] that the entries in books of accounts are not conclusive and that the true nature of income/expense is determinative in deciding the taxability of income or allowability of an expense. 11. If we consider the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the assessee to verify the true nature of Badlapur Land ignoring the accounting entries in books of…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Creative Portico (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as dismissed

ITA 1670/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…e assessee. 4. The learned CIT(A) took the view that the assessee could claim loss even if it is not accounted for its books of account as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. CIT (82 ITR 363). The learned CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has disclosed the loss in its annual accounts in the “Notes forming part of the Accounts-Schedule-16”. The learned CIT(A) followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 254, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has taken the view that unre…

Enam Asset Management Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3010/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Enam Asset Management Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Company Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax – 3(1) 810, Raheja Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Free Press Journal Road Mumbai Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaace3554C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 10(15)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…unt paid towards the purchase tax under the said Act. It is also significant to note that the assessee's entitlement to claim deduction had been held to be valid in view of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co, Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363. This was, therefore, a case of error in perception/judgment. Despite the same, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in allowing the deduction. The words "could not have been raised" must, therefore, be construed liberally and not strictly. 21. The conclusion that the error in not claiming the deduction in…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jammu vs. Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Jammu

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80

…ew, surely not. To begin with, it is the correct legal position 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); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)), and which has a direct bearing on their understanding of and, thus, the delineation or ascertainment of the issue/s that needs to be determined, directly impacting of the raising of such issue/s, per their appeal. Further, it is trite law that appellate proceedings are a continuation of the assessment proceedings. That, therefore, the basic…

Reliance Hypermart Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1196/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…(supra). This proposition is further supported by the decision of co-ordinate bench of ITAT, in the case of Reliance Footprint Ltd, wherein the Bench, after considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co Ltd 82 ITR 363 (SC), held as under:- “6. We have heard both parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has shown a turnover of Rs.4.75 crores in relation to its stores which were made operational during the year at Bangalore and Hyderabad. Before the AO it was the case of the assessee that it…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 909/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy Cit- 14(1)(2), M/S. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 23, White Castle, Vs. 34-35, Union Park, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. Pan Aaacc8966G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI Before Shri G Manjunatha, Accountant Member & Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy CIT- 14(1)(2), M/s. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 23, White Castle, Vs. 34-35, Union Park, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. PAN AAACC8966G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande Respondent By : Shri Devendra Jain Date of Hearing :12.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 25.07.2018 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, Accountant Member This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the CIT(A)-22, Mumbai, dated 07.…

M/S Pharma Traders Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 3(1), Indore

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

ITA 319/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Pharma Traders Acit- 3(1) Pvt. Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 18/2, Dewas Naka, Vs. Lasudia Mori, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aadcp3277A Appellant By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri K. G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)

…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, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363(Hon'ble Supreme Court). 3. That the disallowance of interest confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)-I, Indore of Rs.37,58,361/- is bad in law. 4. That the addition made by the Ld. AO and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I Indore is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case and therefore the additions so made may please be deleted. ” 10. Though the assessee has…

ITO 31(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Surekha Vilas Soudagar, Mumbai

ITA 5198/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…the CIT(A). During the hearing of the appeal, the assessee had raised an additional ground claiming deduction of Rs. 11,54,995 on the ground of liability of purchase tax based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363. The AAC permitted the assessee to raise the additional ground and allowed the deduction. The Tribunal held that the AAC had no jurisdiction to entertain an additional ground or to grant relief to the assessee on a ground which had not been raised before the ITO. The Tribunal set aside the order of the AAC placing reliance on the decision of the S…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…m) 14. He further argued on the effect of accounting treatment and contended that if the income does not result at all, they cannot be taxed. For this purpose reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1971) 82 ITR 363, Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd., (1973) 89 ITR 266, 273(SC) and Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd., (1979) 116 1,5. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement delivered on 23.03.2015 in Taparia Tools Ltd. v. CIT [ Civil Appeal No. 6366-6368 of 2013] reiterated the M/s. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., above principles. It is…

Ernst & Young Ltd., India Branch Office, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6562/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 44C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.6561 & 6562/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ernst & Young Ltd., ACIT (International Taxation), India Branch Office, Circle-1(2)(2), Office No.7, 1st Floor, New Delhi. Atma Ram Mansion, Vs. Scindia House, KG Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi. PAN : AABCE9897M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv. Respondent by : Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 10-05-2018 Date of pronouncement : 31-05-2018 O R D E R…

Ernst & Young Ltd., India Branch Office, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6561/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 44C

Maharashtra Power Transmission Structures P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 595/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos. 595/Mum/2012 Assessment Year : 2008 – 09 2013/Mum/2015 Assessment Year : 2010 –11 M/S. Maharashtra Power Acit – 10(3), Transmission Structures Pvt. Mumbai Vs. Ltd., 190, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan: Aadcm3245M (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan

Section 36(1)(iii)

…elied on the series of the decisions viz., (2013) 27 ITR (Trib) 791 (Hyd.) Asst. CIT vs. B.G.R. Energy Systems Ltd., 218 ITR 1995 (SC) Associated Power Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, 255 ITR 563(SC) CIT vs. Katputli Rural Entpr., 192 ITR 221 . (SC) CIT vs. Bharat Carbon, 62 ITR 363 (SC) Kedarnath Jute Mfg.Co. vs. CIT. Learned AR also referred to the page No.4 of the paper book in which the detailed calculation of liquidated damages amounting to Rs. 2,31,66,730/- was filed and submitted that all these were placed before the lower authorities also. Learned AR also furnished copies of assessment orders for various years to show…

Global Logic Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1672/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Global Logic Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd Income Tax, Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadcr5222K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K. Srinivas Reddy, DR

Section 143(3)

…d. 5. As regards the AO’s finding that the assessee has not debited the amount to the P&L A/c and therefore, is not allowable, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 and also in the case of Bharat Earthmovers Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2000) 245 ITR 428 (S.C). The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the assessee has filed the revised return of income within the time limit making a fresh claim and that the same ought to have been considered as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze…