Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.64 seconds)
Marie Products Private Limited,Jaipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 April, 2025 cites

Dhariwal Industries Ltd. (Formerly ... vs Acit (Inv.) And Addl. Cit, Range-1 on 14 August, 2007

"Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 292B of the 1961 Act do not authorize the AO to ignore a defect of a substantive nature and it is, therefore, that the aforesaid provision categorically records that a return would not be treated as invalid, if the same "in substance and effect is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act". Insofar as the return under reference is concerned, in terms of Section 140 of the 1961 Act, the same cannot be treated to be even a return filed by the respondent assessee, as the same does not even bear her signatures and had not even been verified by her. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for us to accept that the return allegedly filed by the assessee was in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of Section 292B of the 1961 Act. The return under reference, which had been taken into consideration by the Revenue, was an absolutely invalid return as it had a glaring inherent defect which could not be 21 ITA No. 771/JP/2023 Marie Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT cured in spite of the deeming effect of Section 292B of the 1961 Act."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 26 - Cited by 102 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sulabh Marbles (P) Ltd. on 14 July, 2006

Further, Rajasthan High court in the 87 ITA No. 771/JP/2023 Marie Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT case of CIT Vs. Sulabh Marbles (P) Ltd 165 Taxman 258 (Raj.) held that by taking the amount paid by assessee for electricity consumption as base, AO assumed actual production to be more then what is disclosed and made the addition which is incorrect. It was held that where AO has not pointed out any defect in the books of accounts of the assessee or method of accounting followed by the assessee and there was no material placed on the record to show any instance of suppression of sale or inflation of purchase by the assessee, ld. AO was wrong in drawing adverse inference against assessee by only referring to the electricity expenses. Also, the co-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - G K Vyas - Full Document

Win Cable & Datacom P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Asst Cit (Tds) 3(1), Mumbai on 20 April, 2018

ordinate bench of Jaipur ITAT in the case of Prem Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 56 ITD 0382 (JP) held that though consumption of energy was a relevant factor for knowing quantity of goods produced, yet since quality of raw material, constant or irregular supply of energy, manufacturing process involving consumption of energy without giving any production and similar other factors might affect ratio of consumption of energy to production of goods, it would be wrong to make a trading addition on ground that where there was more consumption of energy, there should be more production.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 50 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next