Mysore Fertiliser Co. v. CIT

59 ITR 268High Court1966#4703 most cited

What is Mysore Fertiliser Co. v. CIT authority for?

Income-tax assessments made to the best of the Assessing Officer's judgment must be legal and regular, not arbitrary, vague, or fanciful. The assessment must be based on reason and justice, following established legal principles rather than private opinion or whim.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mysore Fertiliser Co. v. CIT · 59 ITR 268 · assessment to the best of judgment · legal and regular assessment · arbitrary assessment · vague assessment · fanciful assessment · reason and justice · income tax assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 145(3)Section 69ASection 10(1)Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Judgments citing Mysore Fertiliser Co. v. CIT

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 229/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…d that ITO must disclose the basis of computation of order and make his order a speaking order to make higher percentage. The "Estimations must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but must be legal and regular. This was held in Masoor Fertilizers Co. vs CIT 59 ITR 268 Madras. The ITAT Banglore bench in CIT vs Gajanand Traders (2006) 104 TTJ (Bang) 1030 observed that A.O. having not made out a case that the accounts of the assessee are incorrect or incomplete or that the method of accounting followed by it is not an accepted method, book results could not be rejected and addition could not be made on the ground…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 228/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…d that ITO must disclose the basis of computation of order and make his order a speaking order to make higher percentage. The "Estimations must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but must be legal and regular. This was held in Masoor Fertilizers Co. vs CIT 59 ITR 268 Madras. The ITAT Banglore bench in CIT vs Gajanand Traders (2006) 104 TTJ (Bang) 1030 observed that A.O. having not made out a case that the accounts of the assessee are incorrect or incomplete or that the method of accounting followed by it is not an accepted method, book results could not be rejected and addition could not be made on the ground…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 227/BIL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…d that ITO must disclose the basis of computation of order and make his order a speaking order to make higher percentage. The "Estimations must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but must be legal and regular. This was held in Masoor Fertilizers Co. vs CIT 59 ITR 268 Madras. The ITAT Banglore bench in CIT vs Gajanand Traders (2006) 104 TTJ (Bang) 1030 observed that A.O. having not made out a case that the accounts of the assessee are incorrect or incomplete or that the method of accounting followed by it is not an accepted method, book results could not be rejected and addition could not be made on the ground…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 226/BIL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…d that ITO must disclose the basis of computation of order and make his order a speaking order to make higher percentage. The "Estimations must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but must be legal and regular. This was held in Masoor Fertilizers Co. vs CIT 59 ITR 268 Madras. The ITAT Banglore bench in CIT vs Gajanand Traders (2006) 104 TTJ (Bang) 1030 observed that A.O. having not made out a case that the accounts of the assessee are incorrect or incomplete or that the method of accounting followed by it is not an accepted method, book results could not be rejected and addition could not be made on the ground…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. M/S R.R.Energy Ltd., Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 225/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

…d that ITO must disclose the basis of computation of order and make his order a speaking order to make higher percentage. The "Estimations must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but must be legal and regular. This was held in Masoor Fertilizers Co. vs CIT 59 ITR 268 Madras. The ITAT Banglore bench in CIT vs Gajanand Traders (2006) 104 TTJ (Bang) 1030 observed that A.O. having not made out a case that the accounts of the assessee are incorrect or incomplete or that the method of accounting followed by it is not an accepted method, book results could not be rejected and addition could not be made on the ground…

Mysore Fertiliser Co. v. CIT (59 ITR 268) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax