How many judgments cite Pandit Bros. v. CIT?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite Pandit Bros. v. CIT (26 ITR 159), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pandit Bros. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 145(3), Section 131, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 10(23FB).

Pandit Bros. v. CIT

26 ITR 159High Court1954#2389 most cited

What is Pandit Bros. v. CIT authority for?

Low profits alone, or minor defects such as the non-maintenance of a stock register, do not justify the rejection of regularly maintained books of account under Section 145, nor do they permit additions to income without proving specific errors.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pandit Bros v CIT · 26 ITR 159 · rejection of books of account · Section 145 · Section 145(3) · low profits · non-maintenance of stock register · additions to income · errors in audited books · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 145(3)Section 131 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 10(23FB)Section 115BBE Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of account section 145(3)section 145 section 131 section 139(1)section 13 section 68 section 142(1)previous year section 143(2)company transfer

Judgments citing Pandit Bros. v. CIT

M/S. Deepali Designs and Exhibits Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1827/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 36

…shown by the Assessee, was ever made by the Company and such sale could not be presumed in absence of any evidence of sale of scrap outside books. Hence, the order is non-speaking order. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:— (i) Pandit Bros. v. CIT 26 ITR 159 (Puni.) (ii) Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd. v. CIT 33 ITR 13 (Bom.) (iii) R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Spg. & Wvg. Mills v. CIT 75 ITR 260 (Bom.) (iv) International Forest Co. v. CIT 101 ITR 721 (J&K); (v) Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Asstt. CIT (2007) 207 CTR (Raj.) 19. 32. The Ld. AR submitted that on one hand he has accepted the books of 28 accounts a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Deepali Design & Exhibits (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1710/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 36

Shri Banshankari Sales, Dharwad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta Range-2, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2956/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karuppuswamy S.R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 145

…the provisions of Sec.145(3) of the Act are applicable. In such circumstances, the question is as to whether the AO had power to go beyond the book results. In our view, the AO was not empowered under the Act to do so. In Pandit Bros. vs Commr. Of Income-Tax 26 ITR 159 (P&H), the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the mere fact that the profits are low is not material upon which a finding under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, equivalent to Sec.145 of the Act, can be based, because the assessee may be incompetent or his methods of business may be uneconomic. In the present case, the AO has no…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Jsl Architecture Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3457/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…ade by the AO before rejecting the books of account. This observation concerns the fall in net profits of the year under consideration compared to the net profit of the immediately preceding year. It has been held in the case of Pandit Brothers vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 159 (P&H) that before 10 rejecting books of account, there must be material before the ITO to lead him to the conclusion that the method employed is defective or that the case required reconsideration and a new computation must be made. The mere fact that the profits are low is not material upon which finding regarding the rejection of books of accou…

Shanti Odaya Nathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward - 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4174/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Bepair

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM I.T.A. No. 4174/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shanti Odaya Nathan ITO-Ward 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2nd Floor, Row House No. 1, Group No. 1, Sector 17, Koparkhariane, Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan, Pin-421 301 Navi Mumbai-400 709 PAN/GIR No. ADNPN 1897 R (Appellant) : (Respondent) : None Appellant by : Shri S. K. Bepair Respondent by Date of Hearing : 21.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 06.09.2018 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Ta…

Mittal Polyplast Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4178/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Bepair

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234B

…must have inflated the expenses. Despite making this observation there is no whisper whatsoever whether the assessing officer has found any deficiency in the vouchers. As held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pandit Bros. vs. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 159 (P & H) a reduction in profit rate can give rise to further investigation, it cannot be the sole reason for addition. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. 8. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court o…

Gautam Industrial Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is set-aside to the file of the AO, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2852/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2852/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Gautam Industrial Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.5420, Road No.54, Ward – 2(4), Surat. Nr.Water Tank, Gids, Sachin, Surat – 394 230. [Pan: Aacfg 3505 E] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Prakash D.Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri S.R.Meena – Sr.Dr 09.08.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 15.09.2015 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Surat (In Short “The Ao”) Dated 31.03.2014 Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…n the Gross Profit cannot be ground for applying section 145 of the Act. The ld.Counsel has supported this view by placing reliance on the judgments in the case of International Forest Company. Vs. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 [J & K] Pandit Brothers vs. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 159 and CIT vs. Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd. [2013] 216 taxman 225 (MAG) (GUJ) wherein it has been held that the AO noticed that there was fall in Gross Profit declared by the assessee, as compared to the preceding year and he made addition on account of low Gross Profit Rate to the assessee’s income. However, no specific defects in maintenance of bo…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Shree Motors Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5905/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

…of the assessee company." It may kindly be noted that the addition has been made merely because of lower GP ratio, which is illegal as per law. There is no finding and no material on record to support the addition. In the case of Pandit Brothers v VIT (1954) 26 ITR 159 jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in the absence of definite finding that the case fell within the first proviso to section 145(1), it was not possible to sustain rejection of book results and addition to gross profit and the mere fact that the profits were low is not a circumstance or material alliunde which could justify an…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Real Strips Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2255/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2255/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dcit, M/S. Real Strips Ltd., बनाम/ Cir – 3(1)(2), 401-402, Florence, Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp. Ashram Road, Post Office, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 2893 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. D. Shah, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Shah, A.R

…has further submitted that the reduction in the gross profit cannot be ground for applying section 145 of the Act and placed reliance on the followings judgments: (a) International Forest Co Vs CIT (1975) (101 ITR 721)(J&K) (b) Pandit Brothers Vs CIT (1954) (26 ITR 159) (c)Aluminum Industries (P) Ltd Vs CIT (80 Taxman 184)(Gauhati) That Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Symphony Comfort System Limited (2013) 216 Taxman 225 (Mag) (Guj.)(HC) it has been held that "The Assessing Office; noticed that there was fall in gross profit rate declared by assessee as compared to the preceding year and he ma…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mahajan, Kangra vs. DCIT, Palampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as

ITA 909/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mahajan, Vs. The Dcit, Government Contractor, Circle-Palampur Lambi Gali, Dunga Bazar, Nurpur Distt. Kangra (H.P.) Pan No. Ajfpm4259B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Lagan Preet Sandhu, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Lagan Preet Sandhu, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mahajan, Vs. The DCIT, Government Contractor, Circle-Palampur Lambi Gali, Dunga Bazar, Nurpur Distt. Kangra (H.P.) PAN No. AJFPM4259B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Lagan Preet Sandhu, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 10.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 10.04.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the or…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. Anupam Kothari, Bangalore

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

ITA 875/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Anupam Kothari, #21-E, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aehpk 9834 K Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-6, Bengaluru. … Respondent & (By The Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…ason to reject books of account and in support of this, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of G.V.D.I & Co. vs. Dy.CIT (363 ITR 27) and the decision of Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of Pandit Bros. vs. CIT (26 ITR 159) in support of the proposition that the AO can reject books of account only when he finds that there is no method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee or method employed is such that it does not disclose true and correct profits and losses. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that the genuineness…

Kaizen Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhkaizen Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 67, Shanta Prasad, Hindu Income Tax- 6(3)(2), Having Colony, Lane 01, Dadar, Office At Room No. 522, 5 Th Vs. Mumbai-400 014 Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Neha Paranjape, ARFor Respondent: N Hemalatha, DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 145L

…am of the view that stock register can't be considered as an indicative of whether proper books of accounts are maintained or not, and for this assessee placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pandit Brothers vs. CIT [1954] (26 ITR 159) (Del), in which it was held that there must be material before the ITO to lead him to the conclusion that the method employed is defective or that the case requires reconsideration and a new computation must be made. The mere fact that the profits are low is not material upon which finding under section 13 (Corresponding to section 145 of the Ind…

Shashi Kant Khetan, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Jagdish Chand Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 145(3)

…s of accounts cannot be rejected on this ground. Reliance is place on following decisions: - a) Ashok Refractories Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 457 (cal) b) Avdesh Pratap Singh abdul Rehman & Bros Vs CIT (1994) 210 ITR 406 (All) c) Pandit Bros Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 159 (Pun) iii) Major expenses debited under the single head i.e. contract expenses The A.O. has stated in his order that all the expenses have been debited in single head Contract Expenses but the Income Tax Act does not provide any particulars procedure for maintenance of books of accounts. The Act provides method form which profit of Business ascer…

Ankur Goel, Karnal vs. JCIT, Karnal

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

ITA 6213/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Ankur Goel, Jcit, Range Karnal, 2201/13, Urban Estate, Karnal. Vs. Karnal.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dandey, Sr.DR

…ecisions :- (i) CIT vs. Jacksons House, (2011) 198 Taxman 385. (ii) CIT vs. Bindals Apparels, (2011) 332 ITR 410. (iii) Ashoke Refractories (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2005) 279 ITR 457. (iv) Harlal Hemraj vs. ITO, (1982) 14 TTJ 505. (v) Pandit Bros. vs. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 159. (vi) DCIT vs. Paras Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., (2010) 4 ITR 29. (vii) Pushpanjali Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. JCIT, (2001) 72 TTJ 886. He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 12. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).…

M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Del

ITA/31/2005HC Delhi07 Dec 2017

Bench: 31St March 2000, I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year, Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of Rs.12.27 Crores?

Section 260ASection 43B

…not have been maintained, a physical verification of the stock on yearly basis was undertaken and was reflected in the balance sheet of the Assessee. In a large ITA No.31/2005 Page 38 of 41 number of decisions, including Pandit Bros. v. CIT (1954)26 ITR 159 (P&H), Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd v. CIT (1958) 33 ITR 13 (Bom) and Veeriah Reddiar (S) v. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 152 (Ker), it has been held that the mere non- maintenance of stock register would not lead to the conclusion that profit of the Assessee could not be determined on the basis of the books of accounts maintained by it. 74. For all…

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)

…223 (Del.). (iii). Ashok Refractories P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 279 ITR 457 (Cal.) (iv). Swapna Rani Sarkar vs. CIT, 320 ITR 70 (Gau) (v). M. Durai Raj vs. CIT, 33 ITR 182 (SC) (vi). CIT vs. M/s. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95(Del.) (vii). Pandit Bors. Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 159 (Punj) (viii). Madnani Construction Corpn. P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 45(Gau). (ix). Malani Ramjivan Jagannath vs. ACIT, 316 ITR 120 (Raj.) (x). CIT vs. Rajni Kant Dave, 281 ITR 6 (All.) (xi). CIT vs. Om Overseas, 173 Taxman 185 (P&H) (xii). Jaganmohan Reddy P. vs. Narasimham K.V.L. JJ, 62 ITR 528 (xiii). ST. Teresa’s Oil Mills vs. State of Kerla, 7…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rexam Htw Beverages Can(India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6100/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. Rexam Htw Beverages Dcit, Circle -15(1), New Delhi Can(India) Ltd., 448, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi Pan : Aabch7101B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shailesh Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing 22.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 27/08/2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi (In Short ‘The Cit-A’) For Assessment Year 2009-10 Raising Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating Die Reasons For Rejecting The Books Of Accounts Given By The Assessing Officer In The Order Itself. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Facts That During Assessment Proceedings, Gross Disparities Between The Results Shown By The Assessee Were Found Which Is An Appropriate Reason-To- Invoke The Provision Of Section 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 145Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/s. Rexam HTW Beverages DCIT, Circle -15(1), New Delhi Can(India) Ltd., 448, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi PAN : AABCH7101B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR Respondent by S/sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shailesh Gupta, CA Date of hearing 22.03.2017 Date of pronouncement 21.04.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 27/08/2013 of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax( A…

Amit Bhandari, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 350/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Moondra (CA)For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…keeping stock register cannot justify the rejection of entire books of accounts in view of ACIT v/s Mewar Polytee (P) Ltd. 51 TTJ 698 (JP) XIII Tax world 64 and (2) CIT V/s Geo Tech Construction Corporation (1996) 221 ITR (Ker.). [Pandit Bros. v. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 159, 166-7 (Punj). Also, CST v. Khera Shoe Co., (1975) 36 STC 220 (All); Lallooram Ram Swarup v. CST, (1978) Tax LR (NOC) 152 (All); Asst. CTO v. Kapur Trunk Factory, (1990) 79 STC, 334 (Raj); State of Orissa v. Gaurav Enterprises, (1992) 106 Taxation 428, 432 (Ori); K. Ramalinga Muddaliar & Co. v. State, (1992) 86 STC 475, 479 (Mad)]. On the issue o…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Rahil Agencies, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4413/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…e assessee has relied on the several judicial pronouncement before us; but we deem it appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills. Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260; Pandit Brothers vs. CIT, 26 ITR 159 (Punjab) and Ashok retractories Co. P Ltd., 279 ITR 457. Considering facts and circumstances prevailing in the present case, we are of the view that learned CIT (A) was right in deleting the addition made by A.O." 7 Rahil Agencies 13. The CIT(A) has given categorical finding to the effect that the AO has considered gross profit based on SEZ Unit…

ACIT, Circle - 1, 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

…he Act. It was also submitted that it is a settled principle that a lower GP rate does not warrant rejection of accounts without having pointed out any defects in the said books. The assessee relied on the following decisions :- Pandit Bros vs CIT reported in 26 ITR 159 (P&H) S Veeriah Reddiar 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 (Ra…