Shri Ramalinga ChoodambikaMills Ltd. v. CIT

28 ITR 952High Court1955#3797 most cited

What is Shri Ramalinga ChoodambikaMills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Valuation of goods sold at arm's length cannot be rejected solely because the sale price is less than the cost of production. Transactions conducted at arm's length should be respected.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shri Ramalinga Choodambika Mills Ltd · CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd · arm's length · sale price · cost of production · valuation · best judgment assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 48Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

section 92baspecified domestic transactionsection 69bsection 92bbest judgment assessmentadmission of additional evidencesection 50cfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 50fair market valuefurnishing inaccurate particularssection 145

Judgments citing Shri Ramalinga ChoodambikaMills Ltd. v. CIT

Sri.R. Pratap, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 38/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

…ed on the judgment of 23 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 theSupreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the decision of the Madras High Court in Shri Ramalinga ChoodambikaMills Ltd vs. CIT reported in (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad). The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise New Delhi vs. Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corporation Ltd. 2003 INDLAW SC 301 which approved the decision of the Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) to the effect that just because sale price was less than cost of production there was no justification to reject the…

Sri.R. Pratap, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 37/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

…ed on the judgment of 23 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 theSupreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 approving the decision of the Madras High Court in Shri Ramalinga ChoodambikaMills Ltd vs. CIT reported in (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad). The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise New Delhi vs. Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corporation Ltd. 2003 INDLAW SC 301 which approved the decision of the Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) to the effect that just because sale price was less than cost of production there was no justification to reject the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Satish Kumar Luthra, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 891/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Central Circle-9, Vs Harish Kumar Luthra, New Delhi C-165, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Afspk5240H Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Central Circle-9, Vs Satish Kumar Luthra, New Delhi C-165, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Ahhpk5236G

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153A

…e price of the shares ignoring the real price that was paid. He submits that while following 6 the decision in the case of CIT vs A. Raman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and approving the decision in the case of Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd vs CIT (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad), the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Calcutta Discounts,91 ITR 8 (SC) held that the taxing authority cannot take into account the market value of the case ignoring the real value fetched for the same. For these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the appeals. 9. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Fac…

Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -40, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…has been made purely on surmises and conjectures. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his various contentions:- (a) CIT Vs. Discovery Estates (P) Ltd (31 Taxmann.com 180)(Delhi) (b) Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd Vs. CIT (28 ITR 952) (c) CIT Vs.Vishal Teknis (Civil) Pvt Ltd – ITA No. (L) No.1896 of 2012 (d) ACIT Vs. Prathima Educational Society, Hyderabad ITA No.1768/Hyd/2011 and ITA No.720/Hyd/2012.(ITAT- Hyd) (e) DCIT Vs. C Krishna Yadav (12 Taxmann.com 4) 110 M/s. Genom Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (f) ACIT Vs. M/s Thakkar Popatlal Velji sales ltd (ITA No.4812, 4813, 4845/M/2010 (I…

D.C.I.T Cir - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S Celica Developers Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1233/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 263

…understated by the assessee; and, in case there is no supporting material on record, the AO has no authority to substitute the fair market value of the transferred capital asset for the sale consideration. In the case of Shri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. 28 ITR 952, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras that if there was no evidence to show that either the sales were sham transactions or the market prices were paid by the purchasers; then the mere fact that the goods were sold at a concessional rate to benefit the purchasers at the expense of the company would not entitle the Income Tax Department…

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)

…nts 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 952 (Mad) (k) Dhakesari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (l) Gargi Din Jwala Prasad vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 97 (All)’’ The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the submissions and confirmed the order of Assessing Officer and observed at para 4.2 of his order as under:- ‘’4.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Leo Duct Engineers and Consultants Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4609/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: The Assessing Officer.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e books were either actually not paid or the transaction is not 9 I.T.A No.4609/Mum2014 M/s Leo Duct Engineers & Consultants Ltd. bona-fide. Our view find support from the decision in Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel & Company vs CIT 108 ITR 54 (Guj.) relying upon 28 ITR 952 (Mad.), CIT vs Keshavlal Chandulal 59 ITR 120 (Guj.) and Das & Company vs CIT 45 ITR 369 (Pat.). The scope of section 40A(2) is to disallow only unreasonable or excessive payments in computing the income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in TCV Engineering Ltd. vs ACIT (2006) 284 ITR 470 (Mad.) supports our view. 2.10. Hon’ble Gujarat High Cou…

CIT vs. Discovery Holdings Pvt Ltd

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA - 1097 / 2011HC Delhi18 Feb 2013
For Appellant: Mr N. P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchesh Sinha

…2011 & 1097/2011 Page 17 of 20 it applies only to such domestic transactions as may be prescribed by the competent authority. 15. Several decades back the Madras High Court in the case of Shri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1955) 28 ITR 952 held that in the absence of any evidence to show either that the sales were sham transactions or that the market prices were in fact paid by the purchasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate would not entitle the income tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser…

CIT vs. Discovery Estates Pvt Ltd

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA - 1090 / 2011HC Delhi18 Feb 2013
For Appellant: Mr N. P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchesh Sinha

…2011 & 1097/2011 Page 17 of 20 it applies only to such domestic transactions as may be prescribed by the competent authority. 15. Several decades back the Madras High Court in the case of Shri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1955) 28 ITR 952 held that in the absence of any evidence to show either that the sales were sham transactions or that the market prices were in fact paid by the purchasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate would not entitle the income tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser…

CIT vs. Discovery Estates Pvt Ltd

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA - 1089 / 2011HC Delhi18 Feb 2013
For Appellant: Mr N. P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchesh Sinha

…2011 & 1097/2011 Page 17 of 20 it applies only to such domestic transactions as may be prescribed by the competent authority. 15. Several decades back the Madras High Court in the case of Shri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1955) 28 ITR 952 held that in the absence of any evidence to show either that the sales were sham transactions or that the market prices were in fact paid by the purchasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate would not entitle the income tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajendra Seclease Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 791 / 2009HC Delhi25 Nov 2011
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271

…any profit merely because he has transferred some of his stock-in-trade not at the market price but at a lesser price, camp up for consideration before the High Court of Madras in Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax [(1055) 28 ITR 952. The facts of that case as set out in the head-note are: a limited company sold certain goods showed in its stock-in-price to its managing agency firm and to another firm in which one of its directors was interested. The sales in question were held to be bona fide sales. At the same time it was held that the goods were sold at a concessiona…