Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Orissa Fisheries Development ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 September, 1974

Jagan Nath Gurbachan Singh vs Ito on 28 June, 1999

The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Orissa Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 111 ITR 923 (Ori.) has held that where there is no record or faulty and defective maintenance of stock record regarding details of wastage, shortage, shrinkage and other defects, the assessing officer will be justified in invoking section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shanker Rice Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 6 December, 1999

As regards Orissa Fisheries Development Corpn. Ltd.'s case (supra), the submission of the ld. counsel was to the effect that in that case no stock register had been maintained and the C.A. had given adverse report whereas this was not so in the present case. In respect of the other decisions cited, the ld. counsel contended that these were not on ma tenance/non-maintenance of stock registers and therefore not relevant to the facts of the assessee's case. The ld. counsel also sought to distinguish the various other decisions of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal relied upon by the ld. D.R. once again reiterating reliance on the decisions cited by him including those of the various Benches of the Tribunal including Chandigarh and Amritsar.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 27 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Arvind Mills Ltd, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 14 November, 2000

He has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Vs CIT 268 ITR 139 in which it was held that in a transaction of purchase and lease back of assets, depreciation has to be allowed if there is no evidence or material to prove that the transaction was not genuine. Learned Counsel for assessee therefore, submitted that learned CIT (A) on proper appreciation of facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition by allowing depreciation.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durga Rice & Gen. Mills, Ishmailabad vs Assessee on 21 June, 2012

In the final analysis, proviso to s. 145(1) was not applicable and there was no material on record with the Department to show that the yield of rice was higher than the figure stated by the assessee and that there was any sale outside the regular books of accounts maintained.-Jhandu Mai Tara Chand Rice Mills vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 192 (P&H) and Pandit Bros, vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 159 (P&H) relied on; Chhabildas Tribhuwandas Shah & Ors. vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 733 (SC), Punjab Trading Co. Ltd, vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 335 (P&H), CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali 1973 CTR (SC) 317 : (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC), S.N. Namasivavam Chetiar vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 579 (SC), Sree Shanmuqar Mills Ltd, vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 411 (Mad), Dabros Industrial Co. (P) Ltd, vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 424 (Cal), Orissa Fisheries Development Corpn. Ltd, vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 923 (Ori), Bharat Milk Products vs. CIT (1981) 20 CTR (All) 164 : (1981) 128 ITR 682 (All), CIT vs. Pareck Brothers (1987) 63 CTR (Pat) 371 : (1987) 167 ITR 344 (Pat), Amiya Kumar Roy & Bros, vs. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 306 (Cal), Bastiram Narayandas Maheshri vs. CIT (1994) 117 CTR (Bom) 198 : (1994) 210 ITR 438 (Bom) and Vazhakkala Estates (P) State of Kerala (1994) 119 CTR (Ker) 158 : (1994) 209 ITR 461 (Ker) distinguished."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar,, Allahabad vs Assessee on 15 July, 2014

Where there is no record of details regarding wastage, shortage, shrinkage and like, the rejection of books has been upheld [Orissa Fisheries Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 923 (Ori.)]. The valuation of work in progress at the end of the year is of great importance in certain cases. In the audit report, the assessee has not shown quantitative details of work in progress; the same was produced only during the assessment proceedings. The production account is a necessary account for manufacturing business, so much so that in the case of a shoe manufacturer, where production register and information as to consumption of raw materials in the form of an issue register are not maintained, besides other imperfection in wages account, rejection of accounts and estimate of income, which was held, cannot be avoided.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Kesarwani Zarda ... vs Jt.Cit,, Allahabad on 30 June, 2025

Where there is no record of details regarding wastage, shortage, shrinkage and like, the rejection of books has been upheld [Orissa Fisheries Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 923 (Ori.)]. The valuation of work in progress at the end of the year is of great importance in certain cases. In the audit report, the assessee has not shown quantitative details of work in progress; the same was produced only during the assessment proceedings. The production account is a necessary account for manufacturing business, so much so that in the case of a shoe manufacturer, where production register and information as to consumption of raw materials in the form of an issue register are not maintained, besides other imperfection in wages account, rejection of accounts and estimate of income, which was held, cannot be avoided.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next