(1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal v. CIT

132 ITR 87High Court1981#14845 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234BSection 142(1)Section 234ASection 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 251(l)(a)audi alteram partemsection 251(2)section 246best judgment assessmentsection 246asection 251escapement of incomesection 250(6)section 24commissioner (appeals)speaking order

Judgments citing (1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal v. CIT

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…(1934) 2 ITR 246 (Nag); CIT Vs. S. Sen, (1949) 17 ITR 355 (Orissa); Singh Engineering Works Vs. CIT , (1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530, 553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker.)]. In making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does not possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure he likes and that although he is not bound by strict jud…

Puneet Singhvi, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

…(1934) 2 ITR 246 (Nag); CIT Vs. S. Sen, (1949) 17 ITR 355 (Orissa); Singh Engineering Works Vs. CIT , (1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530, 553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker.)]. In making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does not possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure he likes and that although he is not bound by strict jud…

Mustafa Katthawala, Kota vs. DCIT ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1156/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 45(3)

…g (1934) 2 ITR 246 (Nag); CIT Vs. S. Sen, (1949) 17 ITR 355 (Orissa); Singh Engineering Works Vs. CIT, (1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530, 553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker.)]. In making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does not possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure he likes and that although he is not bound by strict jud…

Vimladevi Agrotech Limited, Kota vs. ACIT, WD -1(2), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1065/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

…(1934) 2 ITR 246 (Nag); CIT Vs. S. Sen, (1949) 17 ITR 355 (Orissa); Singh Engineering Works Vs. CIT , (1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530, 553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker.)]. In making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does not possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure he likes and that although he is not bound by strict ju…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 233/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…a major portion of the addition was sustained by the Tribunal without furnishing any basis of its own estimate. The Calcutta High Court held that the order of the Tribunal being arbitrary, the same could not be sustained. In Ganga Prasad Sharma vs CIT (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) TC 11R. 285 the Madhya Pradesh high court emphasized that while making a best judgment assessment, the basis of computation should be disclosed by the ITO. In CIT versus Ranichehra Tea company limited (1994) 207 ITR 979 (Cal): TC 11 PS.3 the ITO rejected the loss return and determined the loss at nil on default of assessee to produce books of…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 232/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…a major portion of the addition was sustained by the Tribunal without furnishing any basis of its own estimate. The Calcutta High Court held that the order of the Tribunal being arbitrary, the same could not be sustained. In Ganga Prasad Sharma vs CIT (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) TC 11R. 285 the Madhya Pradesh high court emphasized that while making a best judgment assessment, the basis of computation should be disclosed by the ITO. In CIT versus Ranichehra Tea company limited (1994) 207 ITR 979 (Cal): TC 11 PS.3 the ITO rejected the loss return and determined the loss at nil on default of assessee to produce books of…

(1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal v. CIT (132 ITR 87) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax