How many judgments cite CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar?

162 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 145(3), Section 153A, Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 250, Section 68.

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 366,470 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 153A Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 250 Section 68 Section 132(4)Section 40A(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 108 trade creditors onus of proof section 145(3)rejection of books of account section 10b section 40a(3)section 145 section 30 section 132(4a)on-money section 269

Judgments citing CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar

Rainbow Enterprises, Nainital vs. ITO- 3, Nainital

ITA 1246/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 145Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…DELHI BENCH:‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 1246/Del/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) Rainbow Enterprises, vs Income Tax Officer-3, 128, Neota Niwas, Haldwani. Haldwani, Nainital (PAN: AAJFR6201P) (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Respondent by Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2016 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) II Dehradun dated 12.10.2011, for A.Y. 2008-09, on the following grou…

Sri. Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudshani, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

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

ITA 904/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)

…e 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 prof…