STO v. Uttareswari Rice Mills

83 ITR 778High Court1972#16158 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133A Section 143(3)Section 69C Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 41(1)Section 68 Section 131

Issues it is cited on

onus of proof audi alteram partem retracted statement unexplained expenditure accommodation entry section 69c genuineness of the transaction section 133a section 133(6)income-tax officer unexplained cash credit section 10

Judgments citing STO v. Uttareswari Rice Mills

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…handChellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); ITO (Addl) v Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker); International Forest Co. V. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K); STO v Uttareswari Rice Mills (1973) 89 ITR 6 (SC); Motipur Zamindari Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ag ITO (1972) 83 ITR 778 (Pat); CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449 (SC), HarmukhraiDulichand v CIT (1928) 3 ITC 198 (Cal.). This requirement of pre-communication to the Assessee did not find mention in the pre- 1961 Act, but courts had held on principles of equity, justice and good conscience that the material gathered behind the back of the Assessee s…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…nal and allow this appeal.” 62. Also in Addl. ITO v. Ponkunnam Traders [1976] 102 ITR 366 (Ker.); International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K) ; STO v. Uttareswari Rice Mills [1973] 89 ITR 6 (SC); Motipur Zamindari Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Agrl ITO [1972] 83 ITR 778 (Pat.); CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC); Harmukhrai Dulichand v. CIT [1928] 3 ITC 198 (Cal.) 63. Thus it is well settled that the Assessing Officer has to confront the assessee with the material collected behind the back of the assessee, if he chooses to use the material against the assessee and that he should provide…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 971/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Sales Tax Tribunal [1987] 167 ITR 498 and 66 STC 292. (i) (ii) The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has observed in J. T. (India) Exports v. Union of India [2003] 262 ITR 269 (iii) The Patna High Court in the case of Motipur, Zamindari Co. (P.) Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 778 3. The third contention of the appellant on merit that the payment of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- made to ICSA (India) Limited and the interest Rs. 82,52,329/- paid to banks were neither claimed as deduction in computing the total income in the profit and loss account/return of income nor depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act 3.1 The submissi…

M/S Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 7900/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 32(1), 308, Level 3, Ceejay Ground Floor, Aayakar House, F Block Shiv Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 020 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 308, Level 3, Ceejay Air India Building, House, F Block Shiv Nariman Point, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 021 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(4) 308, Level 3, Ceejay R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, House, F Block Shiv Sagar Air India Building, Estate, Dr. A.B. Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai -400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…vs. Sales Tax Tribunal [1987] 167 ITR 498 and 66 STC 292. (ii) The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has observed in J. T. (India) Exports v. Union of India [2003] 262 ITR 269 (iii) The Patna High Court in the case of Motipur, Zamindari Co. (P.) Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 778 3. The third contention of the appellant on merit that the payment of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- made to ICSA (India) Limited and the interest Rs. 82,52,329/- paid to banks were neither claimed as deduction in computing the total income in the profit and loss account/return of income nor depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act 3.1 The submissi…

ITO 1(1)(1)(5), Agra vs. Shanti Constructions, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaincome Tax Officer, Ward,1(1)(5), Vs.. M/S Shanti Constructions, Ug-13, Aayakar Bhawan, Agra Shanti Madhuvan Plaza, Delhi Gate, Agra (Appellant) (Pan: Aaufs3185N) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Bajpai CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…o so has resulted in miscarriage of justice and has thus violated the principles of natural justice.” The Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of Motipur Zamindari Co.Prviate Ltd.and Another Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Muzzaffarpur reported in (1972) 16 83 ITR 778 has held that “Assessing authorities are not bound by technical rules of evidence but if they want to use any material which is adverse to the assessee, then the assessee must be given a chance to make his submissions. The principles of natural justice are violated if an adverse order is made on an assessee on the basis of material not brought to…