M/S SHANTIPUSHPA ASSOCIATES,BILASPUR(CG) vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), BILASPUR(CG)
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 1,25,000 on account of expenses, finding the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence. For the provision of expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-calculate the profit based on a specific method, partly allowing the assessee's grounds.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, declared a total income of Rs. 4,17,820. The Assessing Officer made additions for disallowed expenses and provision for future expenses, increasing the total income significantly. The CIT(A) partially deleted some additions and sustained others.
What were the issues?
Whether ad-hoc disallowances of expenses without rejecting books of account are justified, and whether provision for future expenses on sold area is allowable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT341 citing37 ITR 1 · 1959 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH : RAIPUR
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12th January, 2015 of the CIT(A), Bilaspur, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of civil contractor and builder. It filed its return of income on 25th March, 2011 declaring total income at Rs.4,17,820/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) determining the total income at Rs.1,22,94,010/- wherein he
made additions of Rs.2,50,000/- by disallowing an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on estimate basis out of the aggregate expenditure of Rs.9,41,721/- in respect of salary,
coolie, car
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 →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026