STEP LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that estimated additions cannot be made without rejecting the books of account under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowances were based on guesswork and surmises.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged an ad-hoc disallowance of handling and transportation expenses and other expenses. The Assessing Officer made these disallowances without rejecting the assessee's books of account.
What were the issues?
Whether estimated disallowances can be made without rejecting the books of account. Whether ad-hoc disallowances of expenses are permissible without proper justification.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Anil Kumar & Co.121 citing2016 SCC OnLine KAR 8512 · 2016 · Read judgment
- Pr. CIT v. Marg Ltd.99 citing396 ITR 580 · 2017 · HC
- PCIT v. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd.50 citing2019 SCC OnLine BOM 13359 · 2019
- Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Marg Ltd.11 citing2017 SCC OnLine MAD 37852 · 2017
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 19.08.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The appellant craves to add, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.
That on the facts and circumstances of the
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 145(3)
- M/S. Sarvesh Mercantile Private Limited… vs DCIT Central Circle 2(1), MumbaiITA 1952/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- M/S. Sarvesh Mercantile Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 1951/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- M/S. Sarvesh Mercantile Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 1950/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax… vs Pacifica India Projects Private Limited…ITA 2336/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax… vs Pacifica Builders Private Limited, AhmedabadITA 2335/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026