Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1992 (11) TMI 130 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal grants relief in appeal on consignment sales recording and excessive driage claim The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in a case involving omission to record consignment sales and excessive driage claim. Regarding consignment ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          Tribunal grants relief in appeal on consignment sales recording and excessive driage claim

                          The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in a case involving omission to record consignment sales and excessive driage claim. Regarding consignment sales, the Tribunal approved the appellant's accounting method of recording sales upon receipt of sale pattikas, allowing a 50% margin for delayed receipts and excluding certain sales. On the excessive driage claim, the Tribunal estimated allowable driage at 40% of the disputed quantity, providing partial relief to the appellant. The Tribunal directed the ITO to recast the trading account and adjust closing stock accordingly.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Omission to record consignment sales.
                          2. Excessive driage claim.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Omission to Record Consignment Sales:

                          The appellant, a firm dealing in arecanut and other products, appealed against the addition of Rs. 30,40,641 on the ground of omission to record consignment sales for the assessment year 1987-88. The Asstt. CIT noticed that the appellant had not accounted for all the sales effected by the consignees during the accounting year ending on 31st March, 1987. The appellant explained that the sale pattikas were received only during the accounting year 1987-88 and thus entered in their accounts for that year. The Asstt. CIT rejected this explanation, stating that the appellant followed a mercantile system of accounting and should have recorded the transactions within the accounting period. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd., which allows for a different system if true profit cannot be ascertained.

                          The appellant argued that their method of accounting, which records consignment sales upon receipt of sale pattikas, is an accepted practice and had been consistently followed and accepted by the Revenue in previous years. They cited Batliboi on Accounting and other precedents to support their system. The Tribunal found that the appellant's system of accounting for consignment sales upon receipt of sale pattikas is an approved practice, not strictly mercantile but a mixed system. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the sale pattikas were received during the accounting year, and the affidavits provided by the appellant supported their claim of delayed receipt.

                          The Tribunal concluded that instead of including all sales less expenditure as net sales for the year, a margin of 50% should be allowed for any delay in the receipt of sale pattikas. The correct figure of sales should be verified, and the trading account should be recast accordingly. The sales effected by M/s Mohd. Ibrahim & Co. should be excluded for the year ending on 31st March, 1987, as the sale pattikas were received only after the accounting year.

                          2. Excessive Driage Claim:

                          The appellant also appealed against the addition of Rs. 1,15,453 on account of excessive driage. The Asstt. CIT found the driage claimed at 669.01 quintals on a total purchase of 12579.67.400 quintals to be high and made an addition for 85 quintals recorded as driage on 1st April, 1986. The appellant contended that this was a clerical mistake and the overall driage percentage was within reasonable limits. The CIT(A) did not accept this explanation and confirmed the addition.

                          The Tribunal reviewed the arecanut stock register and noted that the shortage of 85 quintals appeared high even if the stock position in May 1986 was considered. However, considering the overall driage percentage was within reasonable limits, the Tribunal estimated the allowable driage at 40% of 85 quintals, granting partial relief to the appellant.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the ITO to recast the trading account considering a 50% margin for delayed receipt of sale pattikas and adjusting the closing stock accordingly. Additionally, the Tribunal granted partial relief on the driage claim, estimating the allowable driage at 40% of 85 quintals.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found