How many judgments cite St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala?

34 judgments on BharatTax cite St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala (76 ITR 365), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 143(2), Section 143(3A).

St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala

76 ITR 365High Court1970#3498 most cited

What is St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala authority for?

Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business must be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate they are unreliable. The revenue must prove accounts are unreliable before rejecting them, and rejection should not be done lightly.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

St. Teresa's Oil Mills v. State of Kerala · rejection of accounts · section 145(3) · unreliable accounts · burden of proof · regularly maintained accounts · assessment order · income tax act

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 143(2)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of account section 145(3)section 145 principal commissioner of income-tax section 115bb section 44ab section 115b addition u/s 68 section 69c section 115bbe section 115 unexplained money

Judgments citing St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala

NIDHI RANI,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…reement with the observations of the AO that the books of accounts of the assessee does not depict true & fair view of the transaction carried out by the assessee. 32. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case St. Teresa’s Oil Mills vs State of Kerala [1970] 76 ITR 365 has held as under:- “Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable. The Department has to prove satisfactorily that the account books are unreliable, incorrect or incomplete before it can reject the accounts. The rejection of…

PRAVINBHAI MOHANBHAI VADI,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.102/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Vadi The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Flat No.1, Prabhudeep Apartment Income Tax, Jamanagar. Air Force-2 Road Vs. Jamnagar. Pan : Agzpv6946P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 69C

…la (1997) 104 SIC 121, (Ker.). The department has to prove satisfactorily that the accounts books are unreliable, incorrect or incomplete before it can reject the accounts. Rejection should not be done lightly". St. Terrsa Oil Mills vs. State of Kerala (1970) 76 ITR 365 (KER.). Without prejudice to our factual submission, evidence submitted before your honour has prepared mindset for estimation we would like to submit as under :- 1. Your honour has prepared the mind set to make addition and observed little inconsistency, discrepancy which specifically was not pointed out and asked to estimate the profit @25% on t…

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…es have been suppressed, or that any transaction has not come into the accounts. In these circumstances, the grounds stated by the Tribunal are neither valid nor relevant in rejecting the accounts of the assessee. (iv) ST Teresa’s Oil Mills Vs State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) (Copy at Case laws PB Page No 88-90) Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reason to indicate that they are unreliable. 29 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Therefore, in view of submission, the ld CIT(A) has not justified in rejecting the books of account by invok…

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

ITA 771/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…placed on the record to show any instance of suppression of sale or inflation of purchase by the assessee, AO was wrong in drawing adverse inference against assessee by only referring to the electricity expenses. • St. Teresa's Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) (PB 407-410): The mere fact that there was wide disparity in the consumption of electricity would not justify the rejection of the accounts without any other supporting circumstances, because such variation could be due to various factors outside the control of the assessee. • Prem Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 56 ITD 0382 (JP) (PB 411-418)…

DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. LATE SHRI HAJI MOHD. DILSHAD THROUGH L/H SHRI DILNAWAZ & MRS. MEHRUNISSA, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA 3555/Del/2017 is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue in ITA 3754/Del/2017 is also partly allowed

ITA 3754/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz Income Tax, Circle-1, (Son) & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Vs Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz (Son) Income Tax, Circle-1 & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent

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

…lidated manner as evidenced from the page 14 of the assessment order. The ld AR argued that the rejection of the books of accounts is not valid.The ld AR relied on following judgments of Hon’ble High Courts- i. St. Teresa's Oil Milh 1. State of Kerala, (1970) 76 ITR 365, 367- 8 (Ker.). Also see, Tolaram Duga s CIT, (1966) 59 ITR 632, 635-6 (Assam)). Page 7 of 16 ITA nos. 3555 & 3754/Del/2017 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad V ACIT Muzaffarnagar ii. CIT Vs. Amitbhar Gunwantbhai, (1981) 129 ITR 573, 580 (Guj.)). iii. Dunichand Dhani Ram Vs. CIT, AIR 1926 Lah 161-2 ITC 183. Also see, George Oummen Vs. C. Ag. LT., (19…

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…les have been suppressed, or that any transaction has not come into the accounts. In these circumstances, the grounds stated by the Tribunal are neither valid nor relevant in rejecting the accounts of the assessee. (c) ST Teresa’s Oil Mills Vs State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reason to indicate that they are unreliable. (e) Haridas Parikh Vs ITO 113 TTJ 274 (ITAT Jodhpur):- Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench has held that unless the AO is able to point out certain transactions which have been left to…

THAKORDAS PAREKH & SONS,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…ssee relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Amitbhai Gunvantbhai [1981] 129 ITR 573 (Guj), 10 Thakordas Parekh & Sons  R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand vs. CIT 75 ITR 33,  CIT vs. Vikram Plastics 239 ITR 161 (Guj)  St.Teresa’s Oil Mill vs. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) 8. On the addition of Rs.18,07,500/- on account of unexplained cash credits, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer wrongly rejected the books of account of assessee and no addition can be made as increased sales was on account of Diwali festival and booming sales compared to the earlier year. In the last year, Diwali fes…

KKR AGRO MILLS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 328/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 Kkr Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Iii/678, Kkr Building, Okkal Kalady, Circle – 1(2), Ernakulam – 683 550. Kochi. Pan : Aabck 6542 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

…t appellant has not reported the actual production of rice corresponding to the Consumption of electricity. Page 6 of 19 d) In this Connection Kind attention is invited to The Following decisions (1) St Teresa's Oil Mills v. State of Kerala reported in [1970] 76 ITR 365 (Ker.); (2) CIT v. Sulabh Marbles (P.) Ltd. reported in : [2006] 205 CTR 464 (Raj.); (3) N. Raja Pu. e) llaiah v. Deputy CTO reported in : [1969] 73 ITR 224 (AP) f) In para 5 of the judgment in St Teresa's Oil Mills v. State of Kerala reported in : [1970] 76 ITR 365 (Ker.)the Kerala High Court has observed 5. In the case on hand, the only circumst…

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

…umbly submitted that the trading addition made at Rs. 57,05,309/- without any material after examination of the books of accounts, deserves to be deleted. Reliance is further placed on the following decisions: St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala, (1970) 76 ITR 365, 367-8 (Ker) Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable. The department has to prove satisfactorily that account books are unreliable, incorrect or incomplete before it can reject accounts, which may be done by showing that…

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 900/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

VENKATESHWAR ISPAT LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 10/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.10/Rpr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Venkateshwar Ispat Limited, Vs Ito-2(1), Raipur 655-B, Urla Industrial Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aaacv 7829 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

…(iii) New Ambadi Estates (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1993] 200 ITR 64 (Mad.) (iv) Nirmal Textile (P) Ltd. IAC (2005) 185 Taxatioin 84 (Del-Trib). (v) M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 565 (Raj) (vi) St. Tereas's Mills V. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365. (vii) Chandra Timber traders Vs. CIT (1996) 54 TTJ (Del-Trib) 544. (viii) Prahaladas Hari Kishan Vs. Astt. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Ind-Trib) 27. (ix) Jaipur Electro (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 535 (Raj), (x) Dy.CIT Vs. Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ (Jod- Trib) 448. In view of the detailed factual and legal submissions above, we submit…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…les have been suppressed, or that any transaction has not come into the accounts. In these circumstances, the grounds stated by the Tribunal are neither valid nor relevant in rejecting the accounts of the assessee. d) ST Teresa’s Oil Mills Vs State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reason to indicate that they are unreliable. e) CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) :- Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Sec. 145(3) provides for assessment in the manner prescribed in s. 144, where the…

ACIT, CIR-43 , KOLKATA vs. M/S SHYAMLAL IRON & STEEL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 572/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)

…nd TISCO and rejections were responsible for the fall in GP in Unit-I from 62.55 to 44% . The AO has not doubted the genuineness of purchases of purchases and not pointed out any specific defects. In the case of St. Teresa Oil Mills vs. State of Kerala (1960) 76 ITR 365, it was held that the account regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable. The Department has to prove satisfactorily that the account books are unreliable, incorrect or incomplete before it can reject the accounts, which may be done…

THE ITO-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. A B COLOR PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2928/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 3(1)(1) V. M/S. A.B. Color Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 666, 6Th Floor 901, Maker Chamber V Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narimanpoint, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca3373K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145

…asons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. The onus is upon the Revenue to show that the Books of accounts were incorrect or incomplete 6. CIT v. Paradise Holidays [2010] 325 ITR 13 (Del) 37-40 7. St. Teresa's Oil Mills v. State of Karela [1970] 76 ITR 365 (Ker) 41-45 AO cannot reject the books of account of an assessee under section 145 only on the basis of surmises and conjecture. The onus is on him to demonstrate any defects or discrepancies 8. ITO v. M/s. Eternity Jewels 46-51 In any case, insignificant mistakes or defects pointed out by the AO cannot be a valid basis to reject books of account…

M/S.GANGPUR WINE vs. COMNR.OF INCOMETAX

The appeals are allowed, but in the

ITA/222/2004HC Orissa02 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

…Tax (1975) 101 ITR 525 (Patna)a Division Bench of that High Court accepted the Assessee’s books of account and held that the rejection was based on suspicion and surmises as well as irrelevant material. In St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala (1970) 76 ITR 365 (Ker), a Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that the rejection of accounts was not justified particularly because it was based only on the fact of variation in the consumption of electricity. 10. In the present case, mere non-issuance of production of sale memos could not have been a ground to reject the entire books of account particu…

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JOHARI,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 535/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 535/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2013-14 Manoj Kumar Johari, Cuke A.C.I.T. Vs. Prop. Of The Art Palace, Zee Circle-Sikar. Bhawan, Subhash Chowk, Ramgarh-Shekhawati, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Adwpj 8870 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 16/02/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken: “1. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Fact In Estimating 12.86% Gp Rate On The Basis Of 5 Year’S Average Assessed Gp Rate & Sustained Gp Addition Of Rs. 20,43,900/- Without Considering Actual Gp & Even Not Considering The Actual Average Of Last 5 Year Gp. 2. The Appellant Prays Your Honor To Add, Amend Or Alter All Or Any Of The Grounds Of The Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…mar Johari Vs ACIT purchase are omitted therefrom or proper particulars or the accounts do not include entries relating to a particular class of business. Rejection of accounts cannot be done lightheartedly. [St. Teresa's Oil Mills V/s State of Kerala, (1970) 76 ITR 365, 367-8 (Ker.)] 1.19 The Ld. A.O. has rejected regularly maintained books of accounts for the year under consideration without considering explanations given on the basis of remarks founded in auditor's report. It is not justified to reject the gross profit declared by the assessee and apply own arbitrary rate of 17.20% G.P. for deriving profit of…

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ion in the electricity consumption cannot be a basis for assuming the unrecorded production. Reliance in this connection is placed in the following cases:- i. CIT Vs. Sulabh Marbles (P.) Ltd 165 Taxman 258 (Raj.) ii. St. Teresa's Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker.) iii Prem Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 56 ITD 0382 (JP) iv ACIT Vs. Khambhata Family Trust 67 ITD 0411 (Ahd.) v. Rakesh Kumar Jayantilal Vs. ACIT 55 ITD 0097 (Ahd.) (TM) vi. G. K. Auto Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 616/JP/05 dated 23.3.2007 11 ITA 191/Jodh/2019 & CO 17/Jodh/2019 DCIT Vs M/s Kanda Edible Oil P Ltd.. 13.2 Finally the Ld. A/R submitted…

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 190/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ence variation in the electricity consumption cannot be a basis for assuming the unrecorded production for which he placed reliance on the following cases:- i. CIT Vs. Sulabh Marbles (P.)Ltd 165 Taxman 258 (Raj.) ii. St. Teresa's Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker.) iii. Prem Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 56 ITD 0382 (JP) iv. ACIT Vs. Khambhata Family Trust 67 ITD 0411 (Ahd.) v. Rakesh Kumar Jayantilal Vs. ACIT 55 ITD 0097 (Ahd.) (TM) vi. G. K. Auto Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 616/JP/05 dated 23.3.2007 12.3 Finally the Ld. A/R submitted that for AY 2013-14, the ld. PCIT, Bikaner vide order u/s 263 dated 20.03.…

M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1429/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…329 ITR 336 (Delhi) • Principal CIT Vs. Marg Ltd. 396 ITR 580 (Bom) • Asstt. CIT vs. Intermedia Cable Communication (P) Ltd. 146 TTJ 476 (Pune) • Ajanta Construction (P) Ltd.V/s ACIT XXI TW 606 (ITAT Jaipur) • St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala, (1970) 76 ITR 365 (Ker) 39. It was further submitted that the lump sum/ adhoc addition of Rs.50.00 lakhs was made solely for possible leakage of revenue. It is pertinent to note here that assessee is private limited company, i.e. having separate legal entity and thus no question of personal expenses arises. Further, ld. AO has stated that such lumpsum addition has…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR vs. M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2