Supreme in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

205 ITR 45High Court1994#10357 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Supreme in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 292/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…bent on the AO to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an enquiry prudent. The work ‘ erroneous’ in section 263 includes the failure to make such enquiry.” 35. In the case of Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [205 ITR 45], the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held as under :- “that it was not quite certain whether the tress sold in the previous year relevant to the assessment year were trees standing at the time of acquisition or trees which grew on roots and trunk existing on the date of acquisition or on roots and trunks of trees existing at the time of acquisition a…

M/S. KALINGA MINING CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK CHARGE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 168/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Jesthi, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…e correct.” P a g e 3 | 7 ITA No.168/CT K/2019 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 15 Similar view was reiterated by their Lorodships of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. vs. CIT [220 ITR 456]. 8. In the case of Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [205 ITR 45], the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held as under :- “that it was not quite certain whether the tress sold in the previous year relevant to the assessment year were trees standing at the time of acquisition or trees which grew on roots and trunk existing on the date of acquisition or on roots and trunks of trees existing at the time of acquisition a…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 233/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…udgment after taking into consideration the relevant material.” Identical observations made by the Judicial Committee in Seth Gurmukh Singh vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 507 (All) : TC1R.357 were approved by the Supreme in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 45 (Gau) : TC1R.508. 7.57 As emphasized by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. C Velukutty (1966) 60 ITR 239 (SC) though there is an element of guess- work in best judgment assessment, it should not be a wild one and should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case. Likewise, it has been laid down by th…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 232/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…udgment after taking into consideration the relevant material.” Identical observations made by the Judicial Committee in Seth Gurmukh Singh vs. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 507 (All) : TC1R.357 were approved by the Supreme in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 45 (Gau) : TC1R.508. 7.57 As emphasized by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. C Velukutty (1966) 60 ITR 239 (SC) though there is an element of guess- work in best judgment assessment, it should not be a wild one and should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case. Likewise, it has been laid down by th…

THE ACIT,, KOTTAYAM vs. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 2(24)

…of the assessee. However, from the order, it can neither be capital nor agricultural income. Hence liable to tax. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the Judgment of the High Court of Gauhati in the case of Tarajan Tea Co. (P) Ltd. reported in (1994) 205 ITR 45 wherein it held that the receipts from the sale of spontaneous growth trees done periodically can be assessed under the capital gains' since there is no cost of acquisition and should be treated as 'revenue receipts'. 3. The facts of the case are that during the AY 2012-13, the assessee received income from sale of spontaneous tree growth amount…

THE ACIT,, KOTTAYAM vs. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 440/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 2(24)

…of the assessee. However, from the order, it can neither be capital nor agricultural income. Hence liable to tax. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the Judgment of the High Court of Gauhati in the case of Tarajan Tea Co. (P) Ltd. reported in (1994) 205 ITR 45 wherein it held that the receipts from the sale of spontaneous growth trees done periodically can be assessed under the capital gains' since there is no cost of acquisition and should be treated as 'revenue receipts'. 3. The facts of the case are that during the AY 2012-13, the assessee received income from sale of spontaneous tree growth amount…

SH. NITTAN ANEJA,SBS NAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…situations: Thalibhai F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar); CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); Nittan Aneja v. Pr. CIT (AY 2011-12) Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); CIT v. Everest Cold Storage [1996] 220 ITR 241 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 557 (MP); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 23…

LALLY MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…interest of the Revenue. Case law in the matter is legion, rendered in different fact situations: CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 6 ITA No.218 (Asr)/2017(AY 2012-13) Lally Motors India P. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002]…

AYYAZUDDIN J, KHAN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CIT- 22,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ch we make reference to the following decisions: Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar); CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj.); Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad.); CIT vs. Export House, Amritsar [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); PT. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (Al…

HASSAN ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4156/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 153A

…’s competence to direct so, we may refer to s. 254(1) of the Act r/w r. 28 of the Rules (also refer: Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1963] 63 ITR 232, 237 (SC); Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 376, 403 (Bom); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau)), to cite few. Under the circumstances, we only consider it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the assessing authority for adjudication afresh in accordance with the law. Needless to add, the assessee shall be provided due and reasonable opportunity to state his case in the matter. As regards the rate (of conversion into Indian…

Supreme in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (205 ITR 45) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax