R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills. Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260; Pandit Brothers v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills. Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260; Pandit Brothers v. CIT?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills. Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260; Pandit Brothers v. CIT (279 ITR 457), spanning 2007 to 2024.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills. Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260; Pandit Brothers v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 131, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 145(3), Section 250.

279 ITR 457High Court2005#4019 most cited

What is R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills. Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260; Pandit Brothers v. CIT authority for?

The CIT(A) was correct in deleting an addition made by the AO when the circumstances and facts of the case warranted it, especially when comparing different types of business activities.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2024.

Also referred to as

R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills · CIT · Pandit Brothers · Ashok retractories Co. P Ltd. · CIT(A) deletion of addition · SEZ unit · manufacturing vs trading activity · AO addition · evidence of cost

Sections most often in play

Section 131 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250 Section 68

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of account previous year business section 14 nfac document

Judgments citing R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills. Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260; Pandit Brothers v. CIT

Sneh Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 698/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)

Section 133ASection 40

…should not necessarily lead to the trading addition. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :- Pr. CIT vs. Hues India Ltd., 2015 TIOL 2275 (Raj.) Malani Rajjivan Jagannath vs. ACIT, 316 ITR 120 (Raj.) Ashoke Refractgories P. Ltd. vs. CIT 279 ITR 457 (Cal.) CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani, 41 DTR 194 (Del.) CIT vs. Om Overseas 315 ITR 185 ( P&H) CIT vs. Gotan Lisme Khaniz Udyog, 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) 4.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below. 4.2. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below…

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)

…e ld. CIT(A) restricted the same to 23%. The assessee has relied on the following case laws : (i). Jaytick Intermediates (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 73 Taxman.com 195(Guj.) (ii). CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani, 326 ITR 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). CI…

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

…ment 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 on A’ Star Exports at Surat. We found that SEZ Unit op…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. M/S Shyamlal Iron & Steel Co., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Mihir Bandyopadhyay, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…it. In the number of legal pronouncements it has been held that merely because stock register is not maintained, books of a/cs cannot be rejected. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgements in the cases of Ashoke Refractories (P) Ltd v. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 457(Cal); ACIT v. Ravi Agricultural lndustries (2009) 316.1TR. AT (Agra). In view of the facts of the case, principles of the case laws discussed above, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the books of account of the Head Office of the appellant and applying a net profit rate of 7.23% shown in branch account. T…

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

…ment 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 at Surat. We found that SEZ Unit operates on fiscal be…

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

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

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

…ment 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 at Surat. We found that SEZ Unit operates on fiscal be…

M/S. Nrb Bearings Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 672/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 40

…above, otherwise stand disclosed, wherever found omitted in other relevant statement. Cost Audit Report, Audit Report, by way of opening and closing stock, rate, weight, etc. As held by the Hon’ble Calcultta High Court in the case of Ashok Refectories Pvt Ltd 279 ITR 457, where the accounts are otherwise verifiable, rejection of books would not be justified. Further, the issues raised by the Assessing Officer on the exclusive method of accounting, recognition of scrap on sales are debatable issues and vulnerable to contrary opinions and accordingly, they cannot be held as instrumental in holding the accounts inco…

Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai vs. Nrb Bearings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 1982/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 40

Anil Bagla vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Accordingly, this appeal i dismissed

ITA - 882 / 2007HC Delhi05 Sept 2007

…is explanation to the contrary, the rate of gross profit applied by the Assessing Officer had to be Learned counsel for the Assessee has relied upon the decision of th Calcutta High Court in Ashoka Refractories P. Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2005] 279 ITR 457 (Cal) to contend that mere nonproduction of records would not be fatal. In the absence of any other material that has been placed by the Assessee before the Assessing Officer, to show that there was a fluctuation in the prices of raw rubber and that the trading activities of the Assessee had declined, we do not think the said judgment would be ap…