Sterling Machine Tools v. CIT

123 ITR 181High Court1980#10355 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing Sterling Machine Tools v. CIT

KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED(PREVIOUSLY KUNOWN AS KUL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

…assessee is agreed by the order. In other words, no cause of action arises out of the impugned order. In deciding so, apart from the plain words of the Act itself, I rely upon the authority of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT 123 ITR 181 (All.), Madras High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT 108 ITR 73 (Mad) and that of jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375 (Bom.). In view of the above the present appeal is rejected at its threshold. 5 5.3 As the appeal has been rejected decision on individual grounds of appeal is no…

SILVER SAND PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3831/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…nd inadmissible to which the assessee has agreed. He held that no appeal lies against agreed addition and no evidence of any mala fide or coercion has been proved by the assessee. Reliance was placed in this case as under:- i. Sterlling Machine Tools (1980) 123 ITR 181 (All.) ii. Mahesh B. Shah vs ACIT (1998) (KER) and iii. CIT vs Vamadevan Bhanu (2011) 330 ITR 559 (Ker.) 6. Accordingly, she confirmed the Assessing Officer’s order. 7. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. I have heard ld. DR and perused the record. None appeared for the assessee despite notices. Upon careful c…

MODINAGAR ROLLS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 674/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Modinagar Rolls Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Major Asha Ram Tyagi Road Circle-1, Ghaziabad. Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aabcm0137C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022

Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e 5.2.1. No appeal lies against the agreed addition unless appellant proves coercion and mala fide. In the present case no evidence of coercion or mala fide has been brought on record. Reliance is placed on the decision of Sterling Machine Tools (1980) 123 ITR 181 (All) in this regard. The AR has valid power of attorney agreed before AO admitting and accepting the addition proposed by the AO. Thus the same is binding on appellant. Reliance is placed on the decision of Turner Morrison & Co.Ltd. vs Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (SC) 85 ITR 607. Keeping in the above facts this ground of appeal is not maint…

CENTRAL MEDICAL STORES,VALANCHERY vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

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

ITA 97/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Central Medical Store The Income Tax Officer Central Bazar, Valanchery Ward - 1, Tirur Vs. Tirur, Malapuram 679552 Malapuram 676101 Pan – Aaefc4396B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 274Section 44A

…of the assessee was obtained through coercion or that the same was malafide: (i) Rameshchandra & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 1687 ITR 375 (ii) Rmlal Kamdar Vs. CIT (Mad) 108 ITR 73 (iii) Mahesh B. Shah Vs. CIT (Ker) 238 ITR 130 (iv) Sterling Machine Tools Vs. CIT (All) 123 ITR 181 4 M/s. Central Medical Store 11. In the present case, the partner of the assessee firm himself accepted the addition proposed by the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings, as clearly stated in the assessment order. Though it was alleged by the assessee during the appellate proceedings that the partner was pressurised to agree to the…

VRINDAVAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE PVT LTD,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO WARD - 26(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6561/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 68

…e A.O. has wrongly made the addition. 7 ITA.No.6561/Del./2019 Vrindavan Internatinal Trade Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida. This act of appellant cannot be supported. As held by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT reported in 123 ITR 181, assessment based on assessee's admission is not appealable. In that case, it was held that the assessee having agreed for addition, AO was justified in making addition and completing the assessment. Following the decision of Hon'ble Court, it is held in this case also, AO was justified in making addition of Rs.18,39,223/- having agreed by appell…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. RENUKA GATED COMMUNITY , ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 737/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Renuka Gated Circle-1, Community, Anantapur. Anantapur. Pan: Aanfr 2245 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)

…malafide. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions on this issue: a) Rameshchandr & Co vs. CIT (Bom) 168 ITR 375. b) Ramanlal Kamdas vs. CIT (Mad.) 108 ITR 73. c) Mahesh B. Shah vs. CIT (Ker) 238 ITR 130. d) Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT (All) 123 ITR 181. 4. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal.” 3. None appeared before us to represent the case of the assessee. However, on examining the record, We find that the Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable as per the CBDT Circulars No.03/2018 dated 11- 07-2018 and Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 8th August, 2019 wherein the tax…

METALLICA TUBES & PIPES PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO-10(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4604/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Metallica Tubes & Pipes Pvt. The Income Tax Officer- Ltd., Ward 10(2)(4) 106, Kanchanban, Dixit Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400057 Pan: Aafcm6609K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Ito – 10(2)(4), M/S Metallica Tubes & Pipes R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, 106, Kanchanban, Dixit Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400057 Pan: Aafcm6609K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat (AR)For Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar (DR)
Section 115JSection 143Section 148

…m 61 (Punjab & Haryana). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Jeeva Raja (2013) 37 taxmann.com 56 (Madras) 3. Rameshchandra And Company vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1987 168 ITR 375 (Bom) 4. Sterling Machine Tools vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1980) 123 ITR 181 (All) 5. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3) , Surat vs. Shri Sidhivinayak Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. (2009) 119 ITD 169 (Ahmedabad (TM). 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the party and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the parties. The AO has made addition of the total amount of the alleged bogus purchase…

SHRI NARENDRASINH MAHENDRASINH CHARAN,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2481/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2481/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Shri Narendrasinh The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Mahendrasinh Charan Ward-1 Vs. G-404, Panacea Residency Himatnagar Opp. Swami Narayan Park Kathwada Road, Naroda Ahmedabad-382 330 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aqqpc 7046 N .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 68

…e that finding in an appeal. The Ld. first appellate authority has made reference to three following three decisions: 1. Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT :: 108 ITR 73 (mad.) 2. Mahesh B.Shah vs. ACIT & Anr. :: 238 ITR 130(ker.) and 3. Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT ::123 ITR 181 (alla.). 4. It is true that admission being declaration against an interest is a good evidence because that will prohibit the Investigating Officer to make enquiry further. Such admission would work as an estoppel against the person who made the admission. But it is to be remembered that admission is always rebuttable if it is demonstrated that…

NAVYUG IRON TRADERS,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 7409/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Navyug Iron Traders, 113/16, Acit Shop No.2, Navyug Market Vs Circle-2 Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan Aaafn9536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

…rney who had agreed before the Assessing Officer for such addition, therefore, such agreement is binding on the assessee. For the above proposition he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sterling Machine Tools Vs CIT reported 123 ITR 181 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd vs Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (SC) 85 ITR 607. He further noted that the assessee did not bring up the fact that the assessee had not agreed for the said addition during the course of appellate proceedings or in Form 35. He examined the assessment records a…

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 24/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Hindustan Construction The Dy. Commissioner Of Corporation Income Tax-27(1), 208, Mahinder Chambers, 4Th Floor, Tower-6, Vashi Vs. Opp. Dukes Co., W.T. Patil Railway Station, Navi Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400704 704 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadfh4209D

For Appellant: A.K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…not been discharged 2.5 I also place my reliance on the case of Pawan Construction vs. ITO (2001) 78 lTD 176 wherein it has been held that no appeal lies against the agreed addition made by the A.O. Similar view has been Sterling Machine Tools Vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 181. Considering the above, the action of the AO in making an addition of Rs.39,00,401/- is upheld. This ground is dismissed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal. 5. We have considered the issue and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find from the facts of the case that the purchases shown to have been…