SUNILKUMAR KRISHNAKANT RATHOD,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was ad hoc and unsupported by material evidence or specific defects in the books of account. The AO's reasons, such as the absence of an attendance register and cash payments below Rs 10,000, did not justify the disallowance.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a petrol distributor, declared a net profit of 0.86% on turnover. The AO disallowed 20% of employee expenses (Rs 4,80,000) citing lack of attendance register and cash payments below Rs 10,000. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether a disallowance of employee expenses can be sustained solely on the absence of an attendance register and cash payments below Rs 10,000, when the audited books of account have not been rejected.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, JAIPUR
Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Prakash
PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Cen- tre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(A)”] dated 28.01.2026 arising out of the assessment order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) under sec- tion 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinaf- ter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2023-24. 2. The Assessee has raised four grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal in Form No.
Ground No. 2 is the only substantive ground an
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026