M/S SAT KARTAR MINING & ALLIED SERVICES P. LTD.,BILASPUR(CG) vs. JCIT, RANGE 2, BILASPUR(CG)
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding past accepted book results and comparable cases. It directed that a net profit of 3.2% would meet the ends of justice, partly allowing the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a transport company, declared a net profit of 3.03% on its contract receipts. The Assessing Officer rejected the book results due to discrepancies and estimated the net profit at 7%. The CIT(A) reduced this to 5%.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the book results and estimating the net profit, and whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was appropriate without verifying payee's tax compliance.
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.
- CIT v. Ansal Landmark Township (P.) Ltd.177 citing377 ITR 365 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
2015 of the ld. CIT(A), Bilaspur (CG) relating to assessment year
2010-11. 2. Ground of appeal nos.1 and 2 by the assessee reads as under :- “1. That under the facts & law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the observation of the learned Assessing Officer that the provisions of Sec.145(3) were applicable for rejection of book results and estimating the income on the basis of turnover. Prayed that provisions of Sec.145(3) are not applicable and book results be accepted.
That under the facts & law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fu
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 →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026