Ram Dayal CIT 18 ITR 375 (All.); M.K Muhammad Ibrahim vs. CIT 10 ITR 64 (Mad.), CIT v. Jug Sah Muni Lai Sah

123 ITR 648High Court1980#18875 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 4 Section 56(2)(x)Section 69 Section 71B Section 72

Judgments citing Ram Dayal CIT 18 ITR 375 (All.); M.K Muhammad Ibrahim vs. CIT 10 ITR 64 (Mad.), CIT v. Jug Sah Muni Lai Sah

Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Mulund vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, SR. D.R

Section 250

…so be made to in the Ratanchand Lallumal, In re [1936] 4 ITR 189 (All.), Jagannath Ram Dayal v. CIT[1950] 18 ITR 375 (All); M.K Muhammad Ibrahim v. CIT[1942] 10 ITR 64 (Mad.), CIT v. Jug Sah Muni Lal Sah[1939] 7 ITR 522 (Patna), CIT v. Planters Co. Ltd.[1980] 123 ITR 648 (Mad.), CIT v. Spunpipe & Construction Co. (Baroda) (P.) Ltd.[1982] 10 Taxman 270/[1983] 141 ITR 246 (Guj.), Debaprasanna Mulcharjee v. CIT[1951] 20 ITR 293 (Cal.), CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. [1970] 76 ITR 625 (All.) and CIT v. Partabmull Rameshwar[1977] 107 ITR 526 (Cal.) for proposition that, even if certain income has escaped tax in t…

Daicel Chiral Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -8 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 87/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Daicel Chiral Vs. 1. Deputy Technologies India Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle Medchal, 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2. National Faceless Pan : Aaccd8423B. Assessment Centre, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Pradeep Revenue By: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri N. PradeepFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…le basis, it is taxable when it is received, if the assessee's accounts are maintained on cash basis —CIT-V A Gajapaty Naidu( 1964) 53 ITR 114(SC) This facts is reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs Planters Co P Limited ( 1980) 123 ITR 648 650-51( Mad) income is liable to be taxed on the basis of accruing or arising to the assessee, or its receipts by the assessee, during the relevant previous year. The accrual or arising of income is generally dependent on the method of accounting employed by the assessee. In cash system on accounting, the accrual or arising of the income will be…

Km. Preeti Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Noida

ITA 6909/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

…d forward). Useful reference may also be made to in the Ratanchand Lallumal 4 ITR 189 (All.), Jagannath Ram Dayal CIT 18 ITR 375 (All.); M.K Muhammad Ibrahim vs. CIT 10 ITR 64 (Mad.), CIT vs. Jug Sah Muni Lai Sah 7 ITR 522 (Patna), CIT vs. Planters Co. Ltd. 123 ITR 648 (Mad.), CIT vs. Spunpipe 141 ITR 246 (Guj.), Debaprasanna Mulcharjee vs. CIT 20 ITR 293 (Cal.), CIT vs. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (All.) and CIT vs. Partabmull Rameshwar 107 ITR 526 (Cal.) for proposition that; even if certain income has escaped tax in the relevant assessment year, because of a device adopted bv the assessee or otherwise,…

Bigesto Technoloties Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6060/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year : 2010-11 Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/S. Bigesto Technologies Ltd., B-11, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi Pan : Aaacb3036E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 145A

…he accrual or arising of the income is independent of its receipt. So long as the amount is due to the assessee, the system of accounting would envisage the amount being treated as having 5 accrual to the assessee (Refer CIT Vs. Planters Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 648 (Mad). In the mercantile system of accounting, the profit or loss at the end of the accounting period is not based on the difference between what was actually received and what was actually paid out, but on the difference between the right to receive and the liability to pay. Therefore, even under the mercantile system, a mere claim by the assess…