46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT

34 ITR 123High Court1958#14050 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 139(1)Section 147Section 44ADSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80A(5)Section 80AC

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(7)section 10basection 158b(b)section 80a(5)section 153a(1)(a)fresh tangible materialsection 80ia(4)section 158bbdeduction under section 80iasection 10bsection 80acdeduction u/s 80ia

Judgments citing 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…(Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as Income Returned % of Income per ITR as per ITR Returned to turnover 2007-08 118,609,437 6…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…(Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as Income Returned % of Income per ITR as per ITR Returned to turnover 2007-08 118,609,437 6…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…(Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as Income Returned % of Income per ITR as per ITR Returned to turnover 2007-08 118,609,437 6…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…(Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as Income Returned % of Income per ITR as per ITR Returned to turnover 2007-08 118,609,437 6…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…ii. iii. iv. V. vi. vii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as per ITR Income Returned as per ITR % of Income Returned to turnover 2007-08 118,609,437 6,662,9…

Akm Erectors, Ernakulam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 185/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…(Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H) 9. In this case the CIT(A) merely estimated the taxable income at 12% of the gross receipts. On appeal before the CIT(A), while estimating the profit at 12% of the contract receipts, the CIT(A) neither referred to any material nor referred to the previous assessment in assess…

Akm Erectors, Ernakulam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 184/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…(Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H) 9. In this case the CIT(A) merely estimated the taxable income at 12% of the gross receipts. On appeal before the CIT(A), while estimating the profit at 12% of the contract receipts, the CIT(A) neither referred to any material nor referred to the previous assessment in assess…

46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT (34 ITR 123) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax