Narasimham K.V.L. JJ, 62 ITR 528 (xiii). ST. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerla

73 ITR 192High Court1969#11821 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Narasimham K.V.L. JJ, 62 ITR 528 (xiii). ST. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerla

M/S. GLOBAL SYNTEX,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 571/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145Section 254(1)

…s Profit additions. To support all his submissions the ld AR for the assessee also relied on the following decisions;  Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT ( 26 ITR 775 SC),  Pandit Brothers Vs CIT (26 ITR 159 Punj),  Jhandumal Tarachand Rice Mills Vs CIT ( 73 ITR 192). 4. On the other hand, the ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue supported the order of Lower Authorities. The ld.Sr.DR further submits that during the year under consideration the AO in the show cause notice specifically mentioned that no day to day stock were maintained. As no day to day stock was maintained, therefore, the books result as well as purchase…

ACIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S AGGARSAIN FIBRES LTD., SAMANA

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

ITA 829/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 145(3)

…masivayam Chettiar Vs. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC) • Bharat Mills Products Vs. CIT (1981) 128 ITR 682 (All) • CIT Vs. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) • CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah and Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC) • Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills Vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 192 (P&H) • R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 260 (Bom) • Bharat Mil Products Vs. CIT 81 ITR 609 (Bom) • Steelworth Ltd. Vs. CIT 69 ITR 36 (Gau) • B.N. Maheshwari Vs. CIT 210 ITR 438 (Bom) 6.9 The A.O. observed that the nature of raw material consumed and furnished goods manufactured by the assessee for the year…

ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KEDIA PIPES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2098/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2098/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle – 35 Kolkata.................................………………………………………………….....Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, Shanti Palli, Kolkata – 700 107. [Pan: Aadfk 1107 D] M/S. Kedia Pipes...................…………………………………………………..............................Respondent 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, 277, Marshall House, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Sanjoy Modi, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10, 2019 Order

Section 133ASection 145(3)

…igures. In this regard, the appellant has relied on the following case laws: (i) Bombay Steel Centre v. ITO [1995] 83 Taxman 85 (Ahd.) (Mag.) (ii) Murlidhar Corporation v. Asst. CIT [1997] 58 TTJ (Ahd.) 699 (iii) Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 192 (P&H) (iv) CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103 (Cal.). 7 M/s. Kedia Pipes I.T.A. No.2098/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (v) Handloom Intensive Development Project (Bijnor) Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 39 TTJ (Delhi) 382 (vi) Badrinath Agarwal v CIT [1967] 65 ITR 242 (All.) (vii) Dabros Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR…

M/S. PARBHAT HEAVY FORGE PVT. LTD.,PUNJAB vs. ADDL. CIT, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5288/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh.O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Prabhat Heavy Forge Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit, Ltd., Karnal Range, Karnal V. Gupta & Associates, Cas, D-15, Calibre Market, Rajpur Punjab Pan :Aaccp6521A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ner (Appeals). On second appeal: Held, Personal disallowance in the case of a company should not be made. Therefore, the disallowance was to be deleted.” Moreover, ad-hoc disallowances have not been approved by the Courts as held in the following case laws: " 73 ITR 192, Jhandumal Tarachand Rice Mills vs. CIT (P & H High Court), in which it was held as under: “That even assuming that the proviso was attracted, the income-tax authorities, not having determined any basis or manner of computation of the true income, profit and gains of the assessee-firm, were not justified in arbitrarily adding Rs. 15,000 in round f…

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S ARIHANT PULICATION (INDIA) LTD.,, MEERUT

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5405/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

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

Section 145(3)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi Before : Shri I.C. Sudhir, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 5405/Del./2013 & 6640/Del./2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Circle 1, vs. Arihant Publication (India) Ltd., Meerut. 24-26, Kalindi Colony, T.P. Nagar, (Appellant) Meerut. (PAN – AAECA 7236R) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR Revenue by Shri Deepak Kapoor, Advocate Date of Hearing 24.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement 16.06.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A),…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RISHIKESH SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5448/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Sh. Rishikesh Sharma, 318, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-36(1), New Delhi Vikas Complex, 37, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, New Delhi Pan : Aosps3911G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Date Of Hearing 23.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 8/11/2011 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals)- Xxvii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2008-09 Raising Following Grounds: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts & Law By:- I) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,56,54,400/- Made U/S 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act On Account Cessation/Remission Of Liabilities Of The Two Creditors. Ignoring The Confirmation Obtained From The Creditors Under Section 133(6). Ii) Reducing The Gp To 20.78% As Against 25%.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Sh. Rishikesh Sharma, 318, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-36(1), New Delhi Vikas Complex, 37, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, New Delhi PAN : AOSPS3911G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR Respondent by Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Date of hearing 23.08.2016 Date of pronouncement 16.11.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 8/11/2011 passed by…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. BURNPUR CEMENT LTD., ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-I, Lower Vs. Brunpur Cement Ltd., 141, Chelidanga, Asansol-4 Cement House, Saradapally, Ashok Nagar, Asansol, District-Burdwan- 713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca 1999 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar Cit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Asansol, In Appeal No.296/Cit(A)/Asl/R-I/Asl/10-11 Dated 31.10.2011 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment Framed U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar CIT DR
Section 144

…ddiar vs CIT reported in 38 ITR 152 (Ker) International Forest Co vs CIT reported in 101 ITR 721 (J&K) Ratna Café vs State of Madras reported in 33 STC 39 (Mad) M Durairaj vs CIT reported in 83 ITR 484 (Ker) Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills vs CIT reported in 73 ITR 192 (P&H) ITO vs Girish M Mehta reported in 296 ITR (AT) 125 (Rajkot) CIT vs Smt Poonam Rani reported in 326 ITR 223 (Del) CIT vs Paradise Holidays reported in 325 ITR 13 (Del) Gamdiwal Dairy vs ACIT reported in 7 ITR (Tribunal) 114 CIT vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports reported in 324 ITR 95 (Del) Anoj Kumar Aggarwalla reported in 74 TTJ (Gau) 573 2.13. T…

M/S. KONARK TELELINKS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department

ITA 5384/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…paper book. Such disallowance has been made without pinpointing any specific item of unvouched or unverifiable nature out of the expenses claimed. 16 6. Moreover, ad-hoc disallowances have not been approved by the Courts as held in the following case laws: 73 ITR 192. Jhandumal Tarachand Rice Mills vs. CIT (P & H High Court), in which it was held as under: “That even assuming that the proviso was attracted, the income-tax authorities, not having determined any basis or manner of computation of the true income, profit and gains of the assessee-firm, were not justified in arbitrarily adding Rs. 15,000 in round…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KONARK TELELINKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department

ITA 5116/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 68Section 69C

…paper book. Such disallowance has been made without pinpointing any specific item of unvouched or unverifiable nature out of the expenses claimed. 16 6. Moreover, ad-hoc disallowances have not been approved by the Courts as held in the following case laws: 73 ITR 192. Jhandumal Tarachand Rice Mills vs. CIT (P & H High Court), in which it was held as under: “That even assuming that the proviso was attracted, the income-tax authorities, not having determined any basis or manner of computation of the true income, profit and gains of the assessee-firm, were not justified in arbitrarily adding Rs. 15,000 in round…

Narasimham K.V.L. JJ, 62 ITR 528 (xiii). ST. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerla (73 ITR 192) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax