Motipur Sugal Factory (P) Ltd. v. CIT

95 ITR 401High Court1974#14565 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Motipur Sugal Factory (P) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n the assessee’s hands. The asessee had produced the gate pass, receipt note, weight note, laboratory report and sample report. The matter was decided on appreciation of evidence. Deletion was held to be valid. (iii) Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd v. CIT (1974)95 ITR 401 (Pat.)(HC)(409)/ Seetarama Mining Co. v. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 1 (AP)(HC)/ Shanker Rice Co. v. ITO (2000) 72 ITD 139 (Asr.)(SB)(Trib.)(158) In above cases, the courts have taken the view that, records maintained by Central Excise Authorities/ Various State Govt authorities are important piece of evidence. Applying the same principle if sales tax autho…

ACIT 17 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RASHMI BEARING CO, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5732/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5732/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-17(3) बिधम/ M/S. Rashmi Bearing Co. Room No.122, 1St Floor, 115, Room No.7, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, G- Block Nagdevi Street, Mumbai- Bkc, Mumbai-400051. 400003. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaefr2683Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Gandhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Restricting The Addition Made By The Ao To 12.5% Of Bogus Purchases As Against The Addition Made At 17.04% Of The Bogus Purchases, Ignoring That There Was No Compliance To The Notices Issued U/S 133(6) By Ao & The Assessee Was Also Unable To Prove The Genuineness Of The. Purchases Either, By Producing The Suppliers For Examination Or By Furnishing

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…ion has been judicially noted in the case of ARUN SHIMPI vs. ITO (2016)48 CCH 195 (MUM)... 5.15 In context of Central Excise (a similar law) records maintained were held to be important piece of evidence as held in Motipur Sugal Factory (P) Ltd. V. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 401 (Pat)(HC)(409)(PRO ASSESSE JUDGMENT OTHERWISE ACTUALLY) and in Shanker Rice Co. V. ITO (2000) 72 ITD 139 (Asr.) (SB)(Trib.) (158). By parity of reasoning the same applies to sales tax law as well in context of determination of taxable income in IT Law. 5.16 In the context of the judicial pronouncements rendered on behalf of the appellant, it is a…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-20(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HABIBULLAH M. H. MULLAJIWALA(PROP.M/S.LUCKY SUPPLY AGENCY), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 5373/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5373 & 5374/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer 20(1)(5) बिधम/ Shri Habibullah M. H. Room No.121, 1St Floor, Mullajiwala (Prop. M/S. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lucky Supply Agency) Mumbai-400012. Shop No. 8, Yusuf Manzil, 2, Sofia Zuber Road, Opp. Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpm7661R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. Ita. No.5374/Mum/2017 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147

…e has made payment in cheques to these 4 suppliers. I find that there are a number of judicial pronouncements where has been held that records maintained as per Excise laws are important piece of evidence as held in Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. V CIT (1974) 95 ITR 401 (Pat.)(High Court)(409); Seetarama Mining Co-V. CIT ()1968) 68 ITR 1 (AP)(High Court) and in Shanker Rice Co. V. ITO (2000) 72 (ITD) 139 (Asr.) (SB)(Trib) (158) -In above cases, the courts have taken the view that, records maintained by Central Excise Authorities: Various State Got authorities are important piece of evidence. Applying the same pr…

ITO 5 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARTEEK FERROMET PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1461/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…suggestions raising doubts [Capital Talkies v. CIT, (1981) Tax LR 1029, 103031 (Ori)]. Further, the records maintained by Central Excise Authorities! Various State Govt Authorities are important piece of evidence. [Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd v. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 401 (Pat.)(HC)(409) &Shanker Rice Co. v. ITO (2000) 72 lTD 139 (Asr.)(SB)(Trib.)(158)]. Thus, applying the same principle, if Sales Tax Authorities have taken the view that the purchases are bogus and if appellant has accepted the same, the order of Sales Tax Authorities can be relied on by the AO to deny the genuineness of the purchase transactions,…

ITO 5 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARTEEK FERROMET PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1460/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…suggestions raising doubts [Capital Talkies v. CIT, (1981) Tax LR 1029, 103031 (Ori)]. Further, the records maintained by Central Excise Authorities! Various State Govt Authorities are important piece of evidence. [Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd v. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 401 (Pat.)(HC)(409) &Shanker Rice Co. v. ITO (2000) 72 lTD 139 (Asr.)(SB)(Trib.)(158)]. Thus, applying the same principle, if Sales Tax Authorities have taken the view that the purchases are bogus and if appellant has accepted the same, the order of Sales Tax Authorities can be relied on by the AO to deny the genuineness of the purchase transactions,…

VIJAY B SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 17 (3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 667/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmavijay B Shah (Huf), Vs. I.T.O.-17(3)(5) Prop.- Of M/S Vijay Room No. 137, Aayakar Enterprises, 12A, Giriraj Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, S.T. Road, Mumbai-400020 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai- 400009. Pan/Gir No. Aabhv 7438 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…ion has been judicially noted in the case of ARUN SHIMPI vs. ITO (2016)48 CCH 195 (mum)…. 6.18 In context of central Excise (a similar law) records maintained were held to be important piece of evidence as held in Motipur Sugal Factory (P) Ltd. V. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 401 (Pat.)(HC)(409)(PRO ASSESSE JUDGMENT OTHERWISE ACTUALLY) and in Shanker Rice Co. V. ITO (2000) 72 ITD 139 (Asr.) (SB)(Trib.) (158). By parity of reasoning the same applies to sales tax taw as well in context of determination o f t a x a b l e i n c o m e i n I T L a w . 6.19 In the context of the judicial pronouncements rendered on behalf of the…

ADITYA BIRLA RETAIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)4, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

…ties and have not been found to be defective the Assessing Officer cannot question on the consumption and manufacture recorded in the books of account. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Motipur Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd. v/s CIT, [1974] 95 ITR 401. Strongly opposing the contention of the Learned Departmental Representative regarding applicability of standard formula, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, such formula cannot be applied as the Tribunal in assessee’s own case has held against applicability of such formula. Learned Authorised Representative submitted, compared to the…