Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 2, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

In the case of a chit fund following the ‘completed contract method of accounting’ and offering income at the end of the chit, held, approving the method:

(i) Recognition/identification of income under the Act is attainable by several methods of accounting including the completed contract method or the percentage of completion method.

(ii) Every assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and follow either the completed contract method of accounting or the percentage completion method of accounting and the same is binding on the department unless it is shown the chosen method distorts the profits.

(iii) Under the mercantile system of accounting, the matching of expenses and revenue (matching concept) is required to be done on accrual basis. (Taparia Tools vs. JCIT 260 ITR 102 (Bom) referred with approval.)

Related Posts:

  • CIT vs. Alpine Investments (Calcutta High Court) It appears that the share loss and the whole transactions were supported by contract notes, bills and were carried out through recognized stockbroker of the Calcutta Stock Exchange and all the payments made to the stockbroker and all the payments received from stockbroker through account payee instruments, which were also…
  • PCIT vs. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) The reasons clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received by him from the DDIT (Inv.). The Assessing Officer has merely issued a reopening notice on the basis of intimation regarding reopening notice from the DDIT (Inv.) This is clearly in breach of…
  • CIT vs. Bengal Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) The impugned order of the Tribunal followed its decision in M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v/s. DCIT in ITA No. 3850/Mum/2010 to held that an amount disallowed under Section 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue's…
  • Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) We have already indicated in our earlier orders and directions that the Tribunal should inform parties well in advance by assigning specific dates of hearing on these Miscellaneous Applications. They should be taken in the order in which they have been instituted/filed. None should be compelled to move this Court…
  • The Swastic Safe Deposit and Investments Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) Despite such difference in the scheme between a return which is accepted under section 143(1) of the Act as compared to a return of which scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act is framed, the basic requirement of section 147 of the Act that the Assessing Officer has reason…
  • Cornerstone Property Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The argument of the assessee that the provisions of Sec.56(1)(viib) of the Act does not apply to the case on hand for the year under consideration as it has been introduced by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 is a misplaced one. From a reading of the order of assessment, it…

Related Judgements

  1. M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had led satisfactory evidence that its business was that of a commission agent and not a trader and 10-11 years had passed, the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of five traders to whom summons … M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme…
  2. K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.) (Supreme Court) 

    Cash in bank is conceptually different from cash in hand. It is not permissible for the Revenue to withdraw money from the attached bank accounts. However, as the order u/s 132B was not challenged, no relief given. Directions given for … K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.)…
  3. DCIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies (Supreme Court) 

    Commitment charges paid in respect of borrowed moneys are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act.
  4. JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) 

    The question as to whether the assessee had an option in law to claim partial depreciation in respect of any block of assets is remanded to the High Court to consider in the light of Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 … JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) Read…
  5. DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court) 

    (i) Interest paid in respect of borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year are deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; (ii) Interest on all moneys borrowed for the purposes of business are deductible … DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court)…