CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar

229 ITR 229High Court1998#607 most cited

What is CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar authority for?

When the Assessing Officer rejects the books of account and computes income by applying a net profit rate, a separate disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash payments cannot be made.

162

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar · 229 ITR 229 · section 40A(3) · section 145(3) · rejection of books of account · net profit rate · cash payments · disallowance

Sections most often in play

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 132(4)Section 40A(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 108trade creditorsonus of proofsection 145(3)rejection of books of accountsection 10bsection 40a(3)section 145section 30section 132(4a)on-moneysection 269

Judgments citing CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar

Mallangouda Sankagoudashi vs. DCIT

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 222/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…le to action u/s. 40A(3) unless it falls within the realm of claimed expenditure with respect to the above two heads. 27. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, 229 ITR 229 (All) at page 232. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions v. CIT, 232 ITR 776 (AP) wherein it was held as under:- ““. . . The question arises whether in such a case any deduction on account of purchases is at all allowed to the assessee, though it may be true that a gross profi…

Mallangouda Sankagoudashi vs. DCIT

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 221/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…le to action u/s. 40A(3) unless it falls within the realm of claimed expenditure with respect to the above two heads. 27. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, 229 ITR 229 (All) at page 232. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions v. CIT, 232 ITR 776 (AP) wherein it was held as under:- ““. . . The question arises whether in such a case any deduction on account of purchases is at all allowed to the assessee, though it may be true that a gross profi…

Mallangouda Sankagoudashi vs. DCIT

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 220/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…le to action u/s. 40A(3) unless it falls within the realm of claimed expenditure with respect to the above two heads. 27. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, 229 ITR 229 (All) at page 232. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions v. CIT, 232 ITR 776 (AP) wherein it was held as under:- ““. . . The question arises whether in such a case any deduction on account of purchases is at all allowed to the assessee, though it may be true that a gross profi…

M/S. Naresh Pharmaceutical Agencies, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

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

ITA 180/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…Officer by rejecting the book result U/s 145(3) of the Act, no separate Addition can be made. [ Brahamanand Agarwal, Thekhedar Vs DCIT (STAT Jaipur) ITA No. 338/JP/2013 Date of Decision 1 1 .08.2015] Other Cases Relied Upon :- [CIT Vs. Banwari La] Bansidhar 229 ITR 229(A]]) [CIT Vs. Aggarwal Engg. Company 302 ITR 246(P&H)] [Dy. CIT Vs. M/s Ram Pa] Singh, Contractor (ITAT Agra) ITA No. 65/Agr/2009 Date of Decision 24.06.2010] • Further the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack had reiterate that once the Assessing Officer has resorted to estimate the net Profit by rejecting Books of Account other…

ACIT, Hubli vs. Shri. Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, Hubli

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 291/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…le to action u/s. 40A(3) unless it falls within the realm of claimed expenditure with respect to the above two heads. 27. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, 229 ITR 229 (All) at page 232. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions v. CIT, 232 ITR 776 (AP) wherein it was held as under:- ““. . . The question arises whether in such a case any deduction on account of purchases is at all allowed to the assessee, though it may be true that a gross profi…

Mallangouda Sankagoudashi vs. DCIT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 219/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…le to action u/s. 40A(3) unless it falls within the realm of claimed expenditure with respect to the above two heads. 27. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, 229 ITR 229 (All) at page 232. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions v. CIT, 232 ITR 776 (AP) wherein it was held as under:- ““. . . The question arises whether in such a case any deduction on account of purchases is at all allowed to the assessee, though it may be true that a gross profi…

Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Roorkee

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

ITA 5847/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2004-05 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Chaudhery, Ito, Ward 2, C/O Sh. Prem Prakash Advocate, Vs. Roorkee 183/2, North Civil Lines, Uttarakhand Muzaffarnagar-251001 (Pan: Anvpp8280H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Prakash, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 40A(3)

…amount incurred on the purchase made by the assessee. Therefore, he requested that the addition of Rs. 3,69,889 may be deleted and ground no. 3 may be allowed. To support his contention he relied upon the various case laws:- - CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229-All) 6. With regard to ground no. 2 relating to confirmation of addition of Rs. 6,49,910/- is concerned, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that an amount of Rs. 6,49,910/- which was paid by the assessee to the Excise Authority towards Excise duty and license fee in the month of May, 2003 was held to be unexplained by the AO as the assessee…

Vinod Kumar Goel, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4737/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2009-10 Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, Ito, Ward 2(2), C/O Sh. Prem Prakash Advocate, Vs. Dehradun 183/2, North Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar-251001 (Pan: Accpg9714F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Prakash, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…t incurred on the purchase made by the assessee. Therefore, he requested that the addition in dispute may be deleted and appeal of the assessee may be allowed. To support his contention he relied upon the various case laws:- - CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229-All) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the revenue authorities and opposed the request of the ld. Counsel of the assessee. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records especially the order passed by the Revenue Authorities. In this case, the AO estimated sales of Rs. 11,20,000/- as against Rs. 9,6…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jadau Jewellers & Mfg (P) Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…of account and applied the net profit rate for the purpose of computing income, no disallowance could be made under s. 40A(3). In this case decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwarilal Banshidhar (1998) 148 CTR (All) 533 : (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All), decision of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh in the case of Amrit Singh & Co. vs. ITO 2010-TIOL-832-HC-HP and decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.K. Contractor (2009) 19 DTR (Raj) 305 were followed Rajasthan High Court Cases:- v) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Motilal Khatri (2008) 218 CTR (Raj) 602 : (2008) 7 DTR 139…

Mohd. Const. Co., Kota vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

ITA 649/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 44A

…Gupta (2013) 142 ITD 0303 (JP) wherein it was held that “When assessee’s income was assessed by estimating profit after rejection of books of accounts, no disallowance can be made separately u/s 40A(3).” Also Kindly refer CIT Vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229, 232 (All.), CIT vs. G.K. Contractor (2009) (PB 17-18) 19 DTR 305 (Raj.), Indwell Constructions v CIT (1998) (PB 14-16) 232 ITR 776 (AP), Maddi Sudarsanam Oil Mills Co. v/s CIT (1959) 37 ITR 369 (AP), ECI Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. in ITA No.2048/Hyd/2011, Samurai Techno Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (2010) 37 DTR 386 (Ker.), ITO v/s Kena…

JCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. System Controls & Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is allowed and the appeal filed by assessee is

ITA 5335/DEL/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2017AY 1994-95

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Anadi N. Mishrasystem Controls & Transformers Pvt. Jcit, Ltd., Range-2, Cgo-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv & A.S. Jindal
Section 145(2)Section 234BSection 40A(3)

…erall addition of Rs.7,95,617.00 towards trading results having been sustained by CIT (A), this separate specific addition out of the same Trading account could not legally be made. Reliance is placed on following decisions:- (i) CIT vs Banwari Lai Bansidhar 229 ITR 229 (Allahabad FIC), copy at pages 9 -11 of first paper book. (ii) Shri Sreedhara Panicker vs ITa in 7 TT J 573 (ITAT Cochin), copy at pages 80-83 of second paper book. Page 8 of 28 In the alternative, without prejudice, the Submissions made before Ld. CIT (A) had been ignored by him because he has confirmed the additions by merely relying on his…

M/S. M.N. Modes, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishim.N. Modes, Dcit, C/O. Gk Kedia & Co. Vs. Circle-22(1), 2044/6, Chitra Gupta Road, Chuna Civik Centre, New Delhi Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi Pan:Aaffm0837L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 29Section 40Section 44A

…n the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in Teja Construction Vs. ACIT 129 TTJ 57 and also the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in 232 ITR 776. She further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Banwari Lal 229 ITR 229 submitting that the income assessed by applying gross profit ration no further disallowance can be made under the provisions of section 40 of the act. 12. The ld DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. Page 9 of 10 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The AO has…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Rishikesh Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5448/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Sh. Rishikesh Sharma, 318, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-36(1), New Delhi Vikas Complex, 37, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, New Delhi Pan : Aosps3911G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Date Of Hearing 23.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 8/11/2011 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals)- Xxvii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2008-09 Raising Following Grounds: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts & Law By:- I) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,56,54,400/- Made U/S 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act On Account Cessation/Remission Of Liabilities Of The Two Creditors. Ignoring The Confirmation Obtained From The Creditors Under Section 133(6). Ii) Reducing The Gp To 20.78% As Against 25%.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

…ddition under section 41(1) of the Act was required. In this connection, the learned Authorized Representative, relied on the following decisions: (i) Indwell constructions, reported in (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP); (ii) Bhandari Lal Bansi Dhar, reported in (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All); (iii) M/s. Exim Cargo Kare, in ITA No. 5134/ Mum/2011(Trib.)(Mum.) 4.14 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We have also gone through the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. We find that under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, following benefits obtained by the assessee are brought…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5029/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 260ASection 40ASection 41Section 68Section 69B

…count of trade creditors and also for the purpose of arriving at a closing stock. This is the view taken by atleast four High Courts in the following reported judgments: 1. 232 ITR 776 (AP) @ 778, 779 (Indwell Constructions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 229 ITR 229 (All) @ 232 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar) 3. 302 ITR 246 (P & H) @ 249 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aggarwal Engineering Company) 4. 377 ITR 568 @ 580 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amman Steel and Allied Industries) 13 12. In the light of the above contentions and on a perusal of the impugned orders, we notice tha…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5028/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…of trade creditors and also for the purpose of arriving at a closing stock. This is the view taken by atleast four High Courts in the following reported judgments: 13 1. 232 ITR 776 (AP) @ 778, 779 (Indwell Constructions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 229 ITR 229 (All) @ 232 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar) 3. 302 ITR 246 (P & H) @ 249 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aggarwal Engineering Company) 4. 377 ITR 568 @ 580 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amman Steel and Allied Industries) 15. In the light of the above contentions and on a perusal of the impugned orders, we notice that the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5025/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…of trade creditors and also for the purpose of arriving at a closing stock. This is the view taken by atleast four High Courts in the following reported judgments: 14 1. 232 ITR 776 (AP) @ 778, 779 (Indwell Constructions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 229 ITR 229 (All) @ 232 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar) 3. 302 ITR 246 (P & H) @ 249 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aggarwal Engineering Company) 4. 377 ITR 568 @ 580 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amman Steel and Allied Industries) 16. In the light of the above contentions and on a perusal of the impugned orders, we notice that th…

Sri Chitta Ranjan Das, Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O WD - 1, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 672/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pande, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…ditions are made on account of GP and working capital no further disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act can be made. For this, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Banwari Lal Bansidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All) wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad high court has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, that no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as no deduction was allowed to and claimed by the assessee. When the gross profit rate was applied, that would take care of ev…

Sri Chitta Ranjan Das, Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O WD - 1, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 671/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pande, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…ditions are made on account of GP and working capital no further disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act can be made. For this, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Banwari Lal Bansidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All) wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad high court has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, that no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as no deduction was allowed to and claimed by the assessee. When the gross profit rate was applied, that would take care of ev…

Sri Chitta Ranjan Das, Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O WD - 1, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 670/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Pande, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…ditions are made on account of GP and working capital no further disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act can be made. For this, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Banwari Lal Bansidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All) wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad high court has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, that no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as no deduction was allowed to and claimed by the assessee. When the gross profit rate was applied, that would take care of ev…

A.C.I.T Cir - 1, Asansol vs. Subhasish Acharyya, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 1050/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri U Dasgupta, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…stimated, then there cannot be any separate disallowance/addition u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. We place reliance on the following decisions in support of this proposition:- • CIT Vs. Mohammad Dhurabudeen (2008) 4 DTR (Mad) 218 • CIT Vs. Banwarilal Banshidar (1998) 229 ITR 229(All) • CIT Vs. Smt. Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324(P&H) 159 Taxman 392(P & H) • CIT Vs. Purushottamlal Tamrakar Uchehra (2003) 184 CTR (MP) 349(2004) 270 ITR 314(MP) • Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1999) 232 ITR 776(AP) In view of the above, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismisse…