Modern Fibotex India Ltd. v. DCIT

212 ITR 496High Court1995#2020 most cited

What is Modern Fibotex India Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) are limited to arithmetical errors or incorrect claims that are prima facie apparent from the information provided in the income tax return itself. The Assessing Officer cannot embark on an inquiry beyond the face of the return during summary assessment proceedings.

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Modern Fibotex India Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 143(1)(a) · Section 143(1) · scope of summary assessment · prima facie adjustments · incorrect claim in return · arithmetical error · intimation proceedings · assessment procedure

Also reported as

125 Taxmann 1002

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)(iv)Section 10(10AA)Section 11Section 11(1)(e)Section 11(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 143(1a)section 143(1)(a)(iv)retrospective amendmentsection 3(b)section 36(1)(iv)section 143(1)(a)section 2(24)(x)section 10aasection 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 10asection 43b

Judgments citing Modern Fibotex India Ltd. v. DCIT

Samarpit Suraksha Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1653/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Garg Heart Centre & ACIT, Circle-10(1) Nursing Home Private National Faceless Appeal Limited Centre (NFAC) 8-9, AGCR Enclave Vs. New Delhi Delhi-110092 PAN-AAACG 0063C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Narendra Kumar Rustogi, Authorized Representative Respondent by Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (“CIT-DR” for short) Global Groupware Income Tax Officer Solutions Limited Ward-10(1) A-20/16, DLF Phase-1 New Del…

Publix Realtors and Facilitators Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Gurgaon

In the result, all these appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1642/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Garg Heart Centre & ACIT, Circle-10(1) Nursing Home Private National Faceless Appeal Limited Centre (NFAC) 8-9, AGCR Enclave Vs. New Delhi Delhi-110092 PAN-AAACG 0063C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Narendra Kumar Rustogi, Authorized Representative Respondent by Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (“CIT-DR” for short) Global Groupware Income Tax Officer Solutions Limited Ward-10(1) A-20/16, DLF Phase-1 New Del…

Swift Securitas P. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Swift Securitas P. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of 57, Rajdhani Enclave, Income Tax, Pitampura, CPC, Bangalore Delhi-110 034 Vs. PAN-AAGCS 2294F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated…

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, New Delhi vs. Ward- 49(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1906/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…issue is highly debatable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (A) Bajaj Auto Finance Limited Vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 63 (Bom.); (B) ACIT Vs. Haryana Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 14 taxmann.com122 (Del.); (C) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (D) Khatau Junkar Ltd. Vs. K. S. Pathania, DCIT (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom.); (E) SRF Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (F) Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 264 (Cal). 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(viia) for delayed payment of em…

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, New Delhi vs. Ward- 49(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1905/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…issue is highly debatable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (A) Bajaj Auto Finance Limited Vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 63 (Bom.); (B) ACIT Vs. Haryana Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 14 taxmann.com122 (Del.); (C) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (D) Khatau Junkar Ltd. Vs. K. S. Pathania, DCIT (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom.); (E) SRF Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (F) Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 264 (Cal). 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(viia) for delayed payment of em…

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, Delhi vs. Ward 49(4) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1904/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…issue is highly debatable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (A) Bajaj Auto Finance Limited Vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 63 (Bom.); (B) ACIT Vs. Haryana Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 14 taxmann.com122 (Del.); (C) Modern Fibotex India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (D) Khatau Junkar Ltd. Vs. K. S. Pathania, DCIT (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom.); (E) SRF Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (F) Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 264 (Cal). 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(viia) for delayed payment of em…

Chintoo Creations, Delhi vs. Circle-50(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1772/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of It Act & Therefore Are Allowable Under Law As Per Decision Of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court. (Tax Effect: Rs.7,57,156/-) 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & Position On Law, The Education Cess & The Secondary & Higher Education Cess Amounting To Rs.1,27,329/- Is A Disallowable Expenditure U/S 40(A)(Ii) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. (Tax Effect: Rs.44,565/-) The Above Ground Is An Additional Ground. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete, Modify/Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal With The Permission Of The Hon’Ble Appellate Authority.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 149(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Chintoo Creations Dy. Commissioner of WZ-119A/2, Income Tax, Naraina Village, CPC, Bangalore-560500 Chintoo Heights Vs. Building, Naraina, Delhi-110 028 PAN-AAAFC 3893K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Del…

M/S. Mac Industries, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Vapi

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

ITA 1036/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…adjustment under Section 143A(a), the deduction claimed had to be inadmissible on the face of the return and documents and accounts accompanying it. He while placing reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Modern Fibotex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1995] 212 ITR 496 and in case of G.K.W. Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 273 ITR 380 (Cal.) and the case of Mintri Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 319 ITR 264 (Cal) submits that if any factual inquiry was necessary or any debatable question of law had to be decided, it could. not be made subject-matter of a prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) and issue which could. n…

R Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 690/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 115JSection 154Section 234B

…on Kochi Refineries Ltd. v. DCIT (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 95 (Mum). In the context of prima facie adjustments, the Courts have consistently held that adjustments cannot be made on the basis of retrospective amendment. In Modern Fibotex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Call, return for AY 1989-90 was filed on 29.12.1989, showing CCS as non taxable. Subsequently in 1990, section 28 was amended w.e.f. 1.4.1967 and CCS was made liable to tax. Adjustment made based on retrospective amendment was held to be unjustified. Similar view was taken in CIT v. Hindustan Electrographite Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 16 (MP), it has b…

Paramarth Sadhak Sangh, Kolkata vs. ADIT(E) Cir -2/Now ITO(Exem), Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1235/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Paramarth Sadhak Sangh……..………………....…………..……………...……..….…….........Appellant P-113, New Raipur Road (E) Kolkata – 700 084 [Pan : Aaatp 4767 F] Vs. Adit (E), Circle-2/ Now I.T.O. (Exem), Ward-14, Kolkata….……………............Respondent

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

…said provision that adjustment can be made only if there is information available in such return that prima facie a claim or allowance is inadmissible." The same view was taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Samtel Color Ltd. v. Union of India [2002] 258 ITR 1 and it was held as under (headnote) : "A bare reading of section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that if, on the basis of the return filed by the assessee, any tax or interest is found due after adjustments, as set out in the section, an intimation has to be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable. Similarly, if any…

DDIT (E), Delhi vs. Petrotech, New Delhi

ITA 6259/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiddit(E), Vs. Petrotech, Inv. Cir-Ii, Room No. 306, Aayakar 601/603, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaaap0965E (Appellant) (Respondent )

For Appellant: Sh Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11hSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…eld that „business‟ refers to real, substantial, organized course of activity for earning profits as „profit motive‟ is essential requisite for conducting business. Following the above decision, the Special Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of BJP vs. DCIT: 258 ITR 1 (Del.) (AT), has held that an activity to be treated as „business‟ should DDIT ( Exemption) VPetrotech ITA No 6259/ Del/2012 A Y 2009-10 have a semblance of trade, an attribute of commercial activity and an expectation to earn income over a reasonable period. The Tribunal further held that the expressions „trade‟ and „commerce‟ are narrower in sco…

Patanjali Yogpeeth (Nyas), Delhi vs. ADIT(Exemption), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

…eld that ‘business’ refers to real, substantial, organized course of activity for earning profits as ‘profit motive’ is essential requisite for conducting business. Following the above decision, the Special Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of BJP vs. DCIT : 258 ITR 1 (Del.) (AT), has held that an activity to be treated as ‘business’ should have a semblance of trade, an attribute of commercial activity and an expectation to earn income over a reasonable period. The Tribunal further held that the expressions ‘trade’ and ‘commerce’ are narrower in scope than the expression ‘business’. The expressions ‘trade’ or ‘c…

Ici India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 850/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. 20.1 We are also making the references to the following orders of the courts on the above stated subjects. The Calcutta High Court in Modern Fibotex India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1995) 126 CTR (Cal) 69: (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) has held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make any addition or disallowance to the income of the assessee returned by him and acknowledged/accepted in the intimation issued under section 143(1) by resorting to issue of notice under section 154 for rectification of mistakes after the regular assessment proceedings have comme…

DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1021/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. 20.1 We are also making the references to the following orders of the courts on the above stated subjects. The Calcutta High Court in Modern Fibotex India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1995) 126 CTR (Cal) 69: (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) has held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make any addition or disallowance to the income of the assessee returned by him and acknowledged/accepted in the intimation issued under section 143(1) by resorting to issue of notice under section 154 for rectification of mistakes after the regular assessment proceedings have comme…

ACIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2355/KOL/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. 20.1 We are also making the references to the following orders of the courts on the above stated subjects. The Calcutta High Court in Modern Fibotex India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1995) 126 CTR (Cal) 69: (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal) has held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make any addition or disallowance to the income of the assessee returned by him and acknowledged/accepted in the intimation issued under section 143(1) by resorting to issue of notice under section 154 for rectification of mistakes after the regular assessment proceedings have comme…

CIT vs. Superior Crafts

ITA/615/2011HC Delhi06 Mar 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 142Section 260

…lr tsimal Kurmar Anant Kumar Vs. Cornmissioner of trncome- I Tax [2007] 2BB tTR ,278 (All) 3nd* this court in Action ITA Nos. 244 12OO9. 547 1 201 1, 548120 1 1 & 61 5 1201 1 Page 31 of44 \4 t4 Electricals Vs, Deputy llorn missiqner;:.of Incorne-Tasr (2002) 258 ITR 1 BB (Det). t- 29. ln Bimat Kumar Anant Kumdr 6upra), a Division Bench I i' of Allahabad High Court referred to,Section 145 of the Act and i, Court decisions and observed that the Assessing Officer is t.'l? entitled to compute incorne in his own way when he is of the i opinion that income cannot be propqrly deduced from the books t, of accounts. lt w…

CIT vs. Superior Crafts

ITA - 548 / 2011HC Delhi06 Mar 2012
Section 142Section 260

…Anant Kumar Vs. Cornmissioner of trncome- I Tax [2007] 2BB tTR ,278 (All) 3nd* this court in Action ITA Nos. 244 12OO9. 547 1 201 1, 548120 1 1 & 61 5 1201 1 Page 31 of44 2012:DHC:9801-DB \4 t4 Electricals Vs, Deputy llorn missiqner;:.of Incorne-Tasr (2002) 258 ITR 1 BB (Det). t- 29. ln Bimat Kumar Anant Kumdr 6upra), a Division Bench I i' of Allahabad High Court referred to,Section 145 of the Act and i, Court decisions and observed that the Assessing Officer is t.'l? entitled to compute incorne in his own way when he is of the i opinion that income cannot be propqrly deduced from the books t, of accounts. lt w…