CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co.

302 ITR 246High Court2008#2242 most cited

What is CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. authority for?

When income is estimated, no separate adjustments or disallowances under specific provisions like Section 40A(3) should be made, as such disallowances are implicitly covered by the estimated income.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. · 302 ITR 246 · estimated income · Section 40A(3) disallowance · no separate disallowance · Section 145(3) · disallowance in estimated assessment · Punjab and Haryana High Court · income estimation

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 40A(3)Section 153ASection 144Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 155bbesection 2(9)onus of proofsection 66legal expensessection 155section 40a(3)section 145(3)survey under section 133asection 269sssection 269section 132(4a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co.

Pawan Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 788/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 136Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.789/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 ITA No.788/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Pawan Kumar Gupta ITO, A-116, Ashok Vihar, Ward 34(4) Phase-III, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AANPG2625E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Suresh Gupta, CA Respondent by Ms. Mayuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement 03/05/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

Shanmugam Sumathi, Namakkal vs. ACIT Circle-1 Namakkal, Namakkal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 290/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmugam Sumathi Assistant Commissioner Of No. 193, Senguttamparai Thottam, V. Income Tax, Sengodampalayam, Circle-1, O. Rajapalayam Post, Namakkal. Tiruchengode, Namakkal District – 637 209 [Pan: Ecyps-2359-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234Section 44A

…s adopted 8% envisaged by the Section as income on a part of the sales. 4. When a flat rate of profit is applied, that would take care of everything and there was no need for the Assessing Officer to make a further addition in respect of introduction of cash (302 ITR 246 = 206 CTR 648 P&H - CIT v. Aggarwal Engineering Co.) 5. Claim made based on cited decisions, against invoking sections 69A and 115BBE made by Written Submissions filed on O 1-05-2021 ought to have been accepted. 6 Facts in the cases discussed by appellate order are totally different from those in assessee's case 7 Charging interest under Section…

Ashita Ghelani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

…n rejected and an addition of Rs.20,43,326/- has already been made by the A.O. by enhancing the declared GP rate of 2.51% to 4.64%, as held in the following cases; i) CIT vs. Banwari Lai Bansi Dhar (All.) 229 ITR 229; ii) CIT vs. Agarwal Engineering Co. (Pnh) 302 ITR 246 iii) CIT vs. Bahubali Menninath Muttin Kar 72 taxmann.com 139 and hence, the CIT (A) erred in giving directions to the A.O. to verify the sales made to 17 parties in subsequent years.” 4. The assessee, through the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 has agitated that the ld.CIT(A) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.…

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…ck. This is the view taken by at least four High Courts in thefollowing reported judgments: 1. Indwell Constructions v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (AP) @ 778, 779 2. CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar [1998] 229 ITR 229 (All.) @ 232 3. CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [2008] 302 ITR 246/2006] 156 Taxman 40 (Punj. & Har.) @ 249 4. CIT v. Amman Steel & Allied Industries [2015] 377 ITR 568 (Mad.) @ 580 Page 11 of 34 15. The principle that if a finding offact is not challenged as being perverse, the High Court is bound to accept such finding. Therefore, as no such substantial question of law has been framed and the questions pertain…

Shri Vimal Chandubhai Patel, Karamsad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 1857/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year:2008-09 Vimal Chandubhai Patel, The Ito, Ward-2, Limdi Pole, Laljinikhadki, New Vs Ahmedabad. Houses, Karamsad-388325. Pan :Aktpp 9776 F (Appellant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40

…ock. This is the view taken by atleast four High Courts in the following reported judgments: 1. Indwell Constructions v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (AP) @ 778, 779 2. CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar[1998] 229 ITR 229 (All.) @ 232 3. CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [2008] 302 ITR 246/2006] 156 Taxman 40 (Punj. & Har.) @ 249 4. CIT v. Amman Steel & Allied Industries [2015] 377 ITR 568 (Mad.)” Vimal C. Patel 5 10. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Bahubali Neminath Muttin(supra), we delete the addition ofRs.3,43,170/- made by the assessing officer u/s 40(a)(ia)…

Ankit Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7692/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manu Chourasia, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ankit Kapoor, Vs ITO, B-102, RG City Centre, Plot No.4, Ward-63(4), Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AUZPK1007E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA & Shri Abhishek Choudhary, CA Revenue by : Shri Manu Chourasia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25th September, 2018…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion was called for either of the amounts incurred on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO h…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion was called for either of the amounts incurred on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO h…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion was called for either of the amounts incurred on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO h…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion was called for either of the amounts incurred on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO h…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion was called for either of the amounts incurred on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO h…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion was called for either of the amounts incurred on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO h…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Shri S. Moorthy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3091/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3091/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3091/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The ACIT, Shri S. Moorthy, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), No.25, Muthumari Amman Koil v. Chennai – 34. Street, Navalar Nagar, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040. PAN: AFBPM7143Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respon…

Nilkantha Saha, Morigaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Morigaon, Morigaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Feb 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133Section 133ASection 68

…d its income were assessed on estimation, then it would not be appropriate to simultaneously rely on the same books for making addition by way of 'undisclosed income'. Malpani House of Stones Vs CIT (88 taxmaann.com 546) (Raj HC) and CIT Vs Aggarwal Engg Co. (302 ITR 246) (P&H HC) by relying on the above cited 4 | P a g e Nilkantha Saha A.Y. 2017-18 judicial precedents, the Ld. A.R submits that the impugned addition made by the AO u/s 68 after rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) was clearly impermissible in law and the same deserves to be deleted. And, therefore, he pleaded that Rs.12,41,700/- may be dele…

The ITO, Sendhwa vs. Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, Sendhwa

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 334/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2011-12 Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, 4, Jawahar Ganj, Sendhwa (M.P) PAN : AAOPT4070B : Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer Sendhwa (M.P) : Respondent Assessment Year 2011-12 Income Tax Officer Sendhwa (M.P) : Revenue V/s Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, 4, Jawahar Ganj, Sendhwa (M.P) PAN : AAOPT4070B : Respondent Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronounceme…

Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, Sendhwa vs. The ITO, Khargon

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 284/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2011-12 Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, 4, Jawahar Ganj, Sendhwa (M.P) PAN : AAOPT4070B : Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer Sendhwa (M.P) : Respondent Assessment Year 2011-12 Income Tax Officer Sendhwa (M.P) : Revenue V/s Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, 4, Jawahar Ganj, Sendhwa (M.P) PAN : AAOPT4070B : Respondent Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronounceme…

Shri Sanjiv Walia, Bathinda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 355/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 355/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 144Section 69A

…aterial on record. The assessee, during the hearing, raised a legal plea (through his counsel, Sh. Arora), i.e., his books of account having been rejected, no addition u/s. 69A could in law be made, relying on the decisions in CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [2008] 302 ITR 246 (P&H); Ram Avtar Pareek v. ITO (in ITA No. 274/2017, dated 21/12/2017); and Maddi Sudarsanam Oil Mills v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 369 (AP), besides by the Tribunal. He, however, was unable to answer the question that the addition, sustained by the ld. CIT(A), though assessed as business income, is qua the balance in the assessee’s undisclosed bank acco…

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. Iwi Cryogenic Vaporization System (I) Pvt. Ltd., Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1508/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R

…where the books of accounts were rejected and income is estimated. It was held that the deductions referred to in sec. 29 are deemed to have taken into account while making estimate including disallowance u/s. 40. 3. In CIT Vs. Aggrawal Engineering Co. (Jai) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) the addition from undisclosed sources u/s. 68 and 69B was found to be unjustified In the case of a contractor where profit was estimated by application of N.A. rate as it was held that once net profit rate was applied, no further addition was called for in respect of unaccounted purchases and introduction of cash in the facts and circumstan…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. Subhash D. Chaudhary Prop.M/S.Sobita Enterprises., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5146/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ns of section 145(3) of the Act there is no justification in invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act for making separate addition. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jan [296 ITR 324] and CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [302 ITR 246]. (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that assessee is into wholesale trader in paper and the gross profit margin of the assessee is allowed 5 to 8% and therefore the estimation of profit element on purchases @12.5% is not justified in the facts of the assessee’s case. 7. L…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. Subhash D. Chaudhary Prop.M/S.Sobita Enterprises., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5145/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ns of section 145(3) of the Act there is no justification in invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act for making separate addition. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jan [296 ITR 324] and CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [302 ITR 246]. (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that assessee is into wholesale trader in paper and the gross profit margin of the assessee is allowed 5 to 8% and therefore the estimation of profit element on purchases @12.5% is not justified in the facts of the assessee’s case. 7. L…