GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the claimed expenses, some fuel expenses must have been incurred. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for an empirical analysis to ascertain the actual fuel cost.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed expenses of Rs. 57,86,200/- under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act for income from renting machinery, which was offered under 'Income from other sources'. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire claim due to lack of evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of expenses claimed under Section 57 for 'Income from other sources' is justified without proper evidence, and if the principles of presumptive taxation under Section 44AD can be applied analogously to ascertain expenses.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.
- Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT381 citing373 ITR 673 · 2015 · SC
- CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.164 citing19 ITR 191 · 1951 · SC
- India in M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT4 citing284 ITR 324 · 2006 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:
This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961, [herein after referred to as the Act
for the sake of convenience & brevity]. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075866312(1) dated
2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act,
which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned order”.
The Relevant Assessment year is 2020-21 and the Gopal Muwel ITA No. 554/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2020-21
corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. 2. Factual Matrix
1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s 143(3) rws 144 of the Act, the total income of the Assessee
was computed & assessed at Rs. 63,98,910/-. The tota
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 57
- Dattatraya Prakash Wankar, Solapur vs ITO WD-2(3), SolapurITA 2210/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aurelia Housing Coperative Society Ltd… vs I.T.O., Ward - 49(4), KolkataITA 2198/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 66/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 914/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 913/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026