65 ITR 242 (All.) (vii) Dabros Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

68 ITR 796High Court1968#8154 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 69A

Judgments citing 65 ITR 242 (All.) (vii) Dabros Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

RAKESH VYAS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…e assessee could have furnished his defence. This has not been done. Hence, principles of natural justice stand violated and the addition is totally uncalled for. The same, therefore, deserves to be deleted. (1) Joseph Thomas & Bros V.CIT High Court of Kerala 68 ITR 796 Held that an assessment made by estimating the profits of the assessee on flat rate basis on the basis of comparable cases without furnishing details of such cases to the assessee is illegal. (2) Seth Nathuram Munalal Vs.CIT (1954) 25 ITR 216 (nag) Held that if the assessee failed to satisfy the Assessing Officer as to the correctness of the profi…

SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/AGR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 234ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

…rchases and Sales have been accepted.No defect in Closing Stock has been found. The G.P. shown has wrongly been rejected. That estimating G.P. Rate without giving any comparable case is against the Principles of Natural Justice. 29. The AR relied upon [1968] 68 ITR 796 Joseph Thomas & Bros. Vs. CIT wherein it was held “I was common ground that no details of the cases which the ITO considered as comparable were ever furnished to the assessee. This was a violation of the settled principle on the subject and the provision of sub-section (3) of section 142. Therefore, there was non-compliance of the provisions of se…

A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA vs. SMT. NEETA SHARMA PROP., AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 286/AGR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 234ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

…rchases and Sales have been accepted.No defect in Closing Stock has been found. The G.P. shown has wrongly been rejected. That estimating G.P. Rate without giving any comparable case is against the Principles of Natural Justice. 29. The AR relied upon [1968] 68 ITR 796 Joseph Thomas & Bros. Vs. CIT wherein it was held “I was common ground that no details of the cases which the ITO considered as comparable were ever furnished to the assessee. This was a violation of the settled principle on the subject and the provision of sub-section (3) of section 142. Therefore, there was non-compliance of the provisions of se…

ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KEDIA PIPES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2098/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2098/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle – 35 Kolkata.................................………………………………………………….....Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, Shanti Palli, Kolkata – 700 107. [Pan: Aadfk 1107 D] M/S. Kedia Pipes...................…………………………………………………..............................Respondent 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, 277, Marshall House, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Sanjoy Modi, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10, 2019 Order

Section 133ASection 145(3)

…1 (v) Handloom Intensive Development Project (Bijnor) Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 39 TTJ (Delhi) 382 (vi) Badrinath Agarwal v CIT [1967] 65 ITR 242 (All.) (vii) Dabros Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 424 (Cal). (viii) Joseph Thomas & Bros. v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 796 (Ker) and B.V. Aswathiah & Bros. v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 860 (All.) (ix) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mascot (India) Tools and Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (x) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Pradeep Goel 174 Taxmann 421 (xi) Bathinda Truck Operator Union vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) (xii) Commissioner of Income Tax Bikaner v. Jaimal Ram Kasturi. (xiii) Ass…

M/S. MEHTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6724/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…claimed remained unexplained, A. O. could have disallowed the same without rejecting the books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income – Tax V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC) ] Kishhinchand Chellaram V. Commissioner of Income- Tax. Bombay City 1] 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before reje…

M/S MEHTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6857/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…claimed remained unexplained, A. O. could have disallowed the same without rejecting the books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income – Tax V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC) ] Kishhinchand Chellaram V. Commissioner of Income- Tax. Bombay City 1] 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before reje…

ITO., WARD-11(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KSR CONSTRUCTIONS,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed as there is no merit in the grounds raised

ITA 283/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahandshri V. Durga Raoappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y. SuryanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri M.H. Naik
Section 133ASection 147

…ame issue in quickest possible time. The appellant further contended that, estimation must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but be legal and regular and should be comparable to the businesses of similar line and relied on judicial decisions as reported in 68 ITR 796 (Ker), (Joseph Thomas & Bros Vs. CIT) and 64 ITR 175 (AP) (S.Subbaiah Setty & Sons Vs. CIT). 7.3 While continuing the submissions, the appellant further submitted that there is no basis for quantifying the profits at Rs. 1,97,00,000/- arrived by deducting the expenditure (Rs. 4,67,78,820/-) from gross receipts, (Rs. 6,53,60,375/-) or by reducing…

ITO., WARD-11(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KSR CONSTRUCTIONS,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed as there is no merit in the grounds raised

ITA 282/HYD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahandshri V. Durga Raoappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y. SuryanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri M.H. Naik
Section 133ASection 147

…ame issue in quickest possible time. The appellant further contended that, estimation must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but be legal and regular and should be comparable to the businesses of similar line and relied on judicial decisions as reported in 68 ITR 796 (Ker), (Joseph Thomas & Bros Vs. CIT) and 64 ITR 175 (AP) (S.Subbaiah Setty & Sons Vs. CIT). 7.3 While continuing the submissions, the appellant further submitted that there is no basis for quantifying the profits at Rs. 1,97,00,000/- arrived by deducting the expenditure (Rs. 4,67,78,820/-) from gross receipts, (Rs. 6,53,60,375/-) or by reducing…

ITO., WARD-11(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KSR CONSTRUCTIONS,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed as there is no merit in the grounds raised

ITA 281/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiahandshri V. Durga Raoappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y. SuryanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri M.H. Naik
Section 133ASection 147

…ame issue in quickest possible time. The appellant further contended that, estimation must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but be legal and regular and should be comparable to the businesses of similar line and relied on judicial decisions as reported in 68 ITR 796 (Ker), (Joseph Thomas & Bros Vs. CIT) and 64 ITR 175 (AP) (S.Subbaiah Setty & Sons Vs. CIT). 7.3 While continuing the submissions, the appellant further submitted that there is no basis for quantifying the profits at Rs. 1,97,00,000/- arrived by deducting the expenditure (Rs. 4,67,78,820/-) from gross receipts, (Rs. 6,53,60,375/-) or by reducing…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-21, vs. M/S MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO.

The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms

ITA/314/2016HC Delhi08 Feb 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 145

…ed remained unexplained, A.O could have disallowed the same without rejecting the books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796(Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. V. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC)] Kishinchand Chellaram V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City II. 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before r…

M/S. MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 474/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…s claimed remained unexplained, A.O. could have disallowed the same without rejecting the books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC)] Kishinchand Chellaram. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay City 11. 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejec…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 4366/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…s claimed remained unexplained, A.O. could have disallowed the same without rejecting the books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC)] Kishinchand Chellaram. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay City 11. 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejec…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 2561/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…s claimed remained unexplained, A.O. could have disallowed the same without rejecting the books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC)] Kishinchand Chellaram. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay City 11. 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejec…

M/S. MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3967/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…s claimed remained unexplained, A.O. could have disallowed the same without rejecting the books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC)] Kishinchand Chellaram. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay City 11. 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejec…