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.

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 159)

ACIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Varsha P. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4489/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaina C I T - 17(2) Smt. Varsha P. Shah Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor 234/26, 2Nd Floor, Om Niwas 1 Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel Kartak Road, Wadala Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400031 Pan - Aaqps4783G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar SoniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjai Parikh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member A C I T - 17(2) Smt. Varsha P. Shah Room No. 217, 2nd Floor 234/26, 2nd Floor, Om Niwas 1 Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel Kartak Road, Wadala Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400031 PAN - AAQPS4783G Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni Respondent by: Shri Sanjai Parikh Date of Hearing: 14.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-29, Mumbai dated 12.03.2013 for A.Y.…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Virender Singh Kochar, New Delhi

ITA 844/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Senior DR

Section 143(2)Section 80

…ven a single item has been transferred from eligible unit to ineligible unit to claim deduction u/s 80-IC and relied upon the judgments cited as CIT vs. Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 (Delhi), CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Delhi), Pandit Bros. vs. CIT 26 ITR 159 (Punjab) and Aquila Software Services Hyderabad (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 106 (Hyderabad – Trib.). 14. Undisputedly, the AO has invoked the provisions contained u/s 80-IC red with section 80-IA (8) & (10) of the Act by rejecting the books of account u/s 145 of the Act merely on the basis of comparison made in the GP ratio of the a…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Virender Singh Kochar, New Delhi

ITA 2081/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Senior DR

Section 143(2)Section 80

…ven a single item has been transferred from eligible unit to ineligible unit to claim deduction u/s 80-IC and relied upon the judgments cited as CIT vs. Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 (Delhi), CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Delhi), Pandit Bros. vs. CIT 26 ITR 159 (Punjab) and Aquila Software Services Hyderabad (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 106 (Hyderabad – Trib.). 14. Undisputedly, the AO has invoked the provisions contained u/s 80-IC red with section 80-IA (8) & (10) of the Act by rejecting the books of account u/s 145 of the Act merely on the basis of comparison made in the GP ratio of the a…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Asian Star Diamonds Iternational P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4412/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

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." 13. The CIT(A) has given categorical finding to the effect that the AO has considered gross profit based on SEZ Unit on A’ Star Exports…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. 'A' Star Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4411/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

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." 13. The CIT(A) has given categorical finding to the effect that the AO has considered gross profit based on SEZ Unit on A’ Star Exports…

Ascendas (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1255/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1255/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2005-2006. M/S. Ascendas (India) Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ist Floor, International Techpark, Income Tax, Pinnacle Building, Corporate Circle I(1) Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 113. [Pan Aaacj 9055H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed his arguments with followings decisions :- (a) ‘’DCIT vs Nagarjuna Investment Trust Ltd (1998) 65 ITD 17 (Hyd) (b) Mysore Minerals Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) (c) R.M.P. Perianna Pillai & Co vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 370 (Mad) (d) Pandit Bros. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 159 (Pun) (e) CIT vs. Salitho Ores Ltd. (2010) 344 ITR 161 (Bom) (f) Eastern Investments Ltd vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) (g) CIT vs. Walchand & Co etc. (1967( 65 ITR 271(SC) (h) CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC) (i) CIT vs. A. Raman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) (j) Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd vs. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 9…

D.C.I.T CC - Xx, Kolkata vs. M/S Todays Writting Products Ltd, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Robin Maheshwari, ACA

Section 145(3)Section 80I

…computer and the soft copy produced before the AO due to the technical reasons could not exhibit the stock register maintained by the assessee. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pandit Brothers vs CIT 26 ITR 159 wherein it was held that books of account cannot be rejected merely because quantitative details with respect to materials (stock register) are not produced or not maintained. 5. CIT(A) called for a Remand Report from the AO. In his Remand Report, the AO accepted that the assessee had produced soft copy of the stock register and that the AO had c…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Superior Crafts

The appeals are dismissed holding that no substantial question of law arises for

ITA/244/2009HC Delhi06 Mar 2012

Section 142Section 260A

…and taken into consideration and then alone the Assessing Officer can reject the books of accounts. In the said case there was evidence of unrecorded sales outside the books. 32. Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pandit Bros. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 159 has elucidated and examined the said question and it was opined as under:- “..... Again, the fact that there is no stock register only cautions him against the falsity of the returns made by the assessee. He cannot say that merely because there is no stock register the account books must be false. The account books in this case were accep…

Pandit Bros. v. CIT

What is Pandit Bros. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Pandit Bros. v. CIT