68 ITR 796 (Ker), (Joseph Thomas & Bros. v. CIT)

64 ITR 175High Court1967#8703 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing 68 ITR 796 (Ker), (Joseph Thomas & Bros. v. CIT)

SHRI MOHAN LAL BARGOTI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1462/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Shri Mohan Lal Bargoti, Cuke A.C.I.T. Vs. 1-A-1, 1-A-2, Subhash Colony, Circle-4, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzpb 7893 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 14/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 69

…tself does not give a license to the ld. 5 ITA 1462/JP/2018 _ Shri Mohan Lal Bargoti Vs ACIT A.O. for making trading addition unless something specific is pointed out. Reliance is placed on the following case laws: (i) S. Sarabhaiah Setty & Sons V. CIT[1967] 64 ITR 175 (AP). (ii) Yaggina Veeraraghavulu & Mavuleti Sanaraju & Co. V. CIT[1966] 62 ITR 528 (AP). (iii) Seth Nathuram Munnalal V. CIT 25 ITR 216 (Nag.) The ld AR has further submitted that the Ld. A.O. has applied NP rate of 5.11% of Assessment Year 2012-13 in the year under consideration. This has resulted in trading addition of Rs. 30,63,237/-. The Ld.…

JYPORE MANUFATURING JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT(OSD), JAIPUR

In the result appeals filed by assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 304/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT -DR
Section 153ASection 153C

…ific is pointed out. The Learned Assessing Officer neither pointed out any serious defect in the books of accounts nor any comparable case for applying GP rate of 35%. Reliance is placed on the following case laws: I. S. Sarabhaiah Setty & Sons V. CIT[1967] 64 ITR 175 (AP). Assessee must be given opportunity to rebut estimate. Where the ITO did not state the basis of the estimate and no opportunity was given to the assessee to rebut that basis, his order was liable to be set aside. II. Yaggina Veeraraghavulu & Mavuleti Sanaraju & Co. V. CIT[1966] 62 ITR 528 (AP). 22 M/s. Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers (P) L…

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)

…endalal Hazarilal & Co. (xiv) Seth Nathuram Munnalal v. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 216 (Nag) (xv) General Commercial Corporation Ltd. v CIT [1966] 62 ITR 459 (MAD) (xvi) Polisetti Subbaraidu & Co. v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 738 (AP) (xvii) S. Sarabhaiah & Sons v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 175 (AP) (xviii) Yaggina Veeraraghavulu & Mavuleti Somaraju & Co. v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528 (AP) Common principles which emerged from all the above judicial decisions are as under: (i) Rejection of books of accounts without pointing out any specific instance of irregularity is not valid. (ii) An arbitrary estimation of Gross Profits cannot be made in a…

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

…mercial 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 rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits 64 ITR 175 (AP) S. Sarabhaiah Setty and Sons. V. Commissioner of Income – Tax, A. P & 62 ITR 528 (AP) Yakub Versey Laljee & Another V. Commissioner of Income – Tax, A. P. 6. Estimate should be based on some evidence and material 8 STC 770 (SC)_ Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal V. The State of Bihar 7. Best judgment assessment to be made (estimation shall have…

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

…mercial 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 rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits 64 ITR 175 (AP) S. Sarabhaiah Setty and Sons. V. Commissioner of Income – Tax, A. P & 62 ITR 528 (AP) Yakub Versey Laljee & Another V. Commissioner of Income – Tax, A. P. 6. Estimate should be based on some evidence and material 8 STC 770 (SC)_ Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal V. The State of Bihar 7. Best judgment assessment to be made (estimation shall have…

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

…rther 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 the amounts of investments (Rs. 1,41,21,336/-) from t…

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

…rther 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 the amounts of investments (Rs. 1,41,21,336/-) from t…

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

…rther 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 the amounts of investments (Rs. 1,41,21,336/-) from t…

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

…ial 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 rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits 64 ITR 175 (AP) S. Sarabhaiah Setty and Sons. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P & 62 ITR 528 (AP) Yakub Versey Laljee & Another V. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P 6. Estimate should be based on some evidence and material 8 STC 770 (SC) Raghubar Mandal harihar Mandal v. the State of Bihar Page 5 of 9 ITA 314/2016 & connected appeals 7. Best…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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) And 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) And ITA Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 ACIT, Circl…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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) And 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) And ITA Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 ACIT, Circl…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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) And 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) And ITA Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 ACIT, Circl…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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) And 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) And ITA Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 ACIT, Circl…