What is CIT v. Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer who finds a transaction with a subcontractor to be unreal must add the commission earned on such transaction as undisclosed income, rather than treating the entire transaction as undisclosed income.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Consulting Engineering Group Ltd.?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. (365 ITR 284), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37, Section 40A(2)(b).

CIT v. Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. (365 ITR 284)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BLEND FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the R

ITA 8088/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner of Income Blend Financial Services Limited Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai C-404 Pramukh Plaza Cardinal Room No.535, Aayakar Bhavan, Gracious Road Chakala, Vs. Mumbai-400099 Mumbai-400001 PAN NO- AAACB6024C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Sanghvi Department by : Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. DR) : 19/02/2026 Date of Hearing : 13/03/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the R…

MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 618/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…ive & unreasonable or not is essentially a question of fact & unless it is first held that such expenditure was excessive or unreasonable, the question of applicability of section 40(A)(2)(a) becomes academic. CIT Vs. Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 284 (Raj.) (HC)(Case laws compilation PB 2-8) 5 Mothers Education Hub, Jaipur. Rajesh Bajaj Vs. DCIT (2021) 201 DTR 310 (All.) (Trib)(Case laws compilation PB 9-15) It is submitted that the salary paid to specified persons is reasonable considering their work responsibility, work experience and educational qualification. The explanation as to the…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. D.R.S.LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1971/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, DR

…ITA Nos 1971 and 1719 of 2018 DRS Logistics P Ltd Secunderabad आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.1971 & 1719/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dy. C.I.T Vs. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd, Circle 17(1) Secunderabad. Hyderabad. PAN:AAACD7182R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, DR Assessee by: Shri K.C.Devdas, CA & Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Date of hearing: 31/10/2022 Date of pronouncement: 18/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1719/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, DR

…ITA Nos 1971 and 1719 of 2018 DRS Logistics P Ltd Secunderabad आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos.1971 & 1719/Hyd/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dy. C.I.T Vs. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd, Circle 17(1) Secunderabad. Hyderabad. PAN:AAACD7182R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, DR Assessee by: Shri K.C.Devdas, CA & Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Date of hearing: 31/10/2022 Date of pronouncement: 18/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M…

BALANI INFOTECH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandrabalani Infotech P. Ltd. Vs. Acit 119, Vinobapuri Lajpat Circle – 4(1) Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-24 New Delhi

Section 143(3)Section 2(41)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Balani Infotech P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 119, Vinobapuri Lajpat Circle – 4(1) Nagar-II, New Delhi-24 New Delhi PAN No. AADCB 1970 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri K. R. Manjani, Adv. Shri Tarun Aswani, Adv. Revenue by Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 28.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Ta…

SHETH AND SURA ENGINEERS P.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

ITA 45/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth & Sura Engineers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Circle-6, Ltd., Pune. 263/1, Aqua House, Sinhagad Road, Near Parvati Overbridge, Pune- 411026. Pan : Aaecs1737P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav : Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 16.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Following Grounds Are Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other - On Facts & In Law, 1) The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Learned A.O. From Payment Of Labour Charges. The Disallowance Of Labour Charges Were Made Merely On Ad

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)

…ecisions in the case of (i) CIT vs. Clifford D'Souza (IT Appeal No. 22 of 2011, dated 24-2-2015) and (ii) CIT vs. Konkan Marine Agencies, 313 ITR 308 (Kar.). Similarly, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Consulting Engineering Group Ltd., 365 ITR 284 held that in the absence of evidence of bogus payment, the disallowance of part of payment on estimate basis was held to be unjustified. Further, the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT(A) is only confined to deciding the reality of the expenditure which means the ld. CIT(A) has to render a finding as to whether the amount claimed as deduction was actual…

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 534/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…rising from alleged transaction had been treated as genuine as how the receipts of such transaction as undisclosed income of assessee. On the identical facts the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. reported in 369 ITR 284 held that when the contract work allotted to sub contractor on commission basis and the ld AO found such transaction are not real transaction the ld AO should have made addition in respect of commission earned on such transaction not entire transaction as undisclosed income of the assessee. g] That in the 2011-12, the department had accepted the…

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 533/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…rising from alleged transaction had been treated as genuine as how the receipts of such transaction as undisclosed income of assessee. On the identical facts the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. reported in 369 ITR 284 held that when the contract work allotted to sub contractor on commission basis and the ld AO found such transaction are not real transaction the ld AO should have made addition in respect of commission earned on such transaction not entire transaction as undisclosed income of the assessee. g] That in the 2011-12, the department had accepted the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 375/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…rising from alleged transaction had been treated as genuine as how the receipts of such transaction as undisclosed income of assessee. On the identical facts the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. reported in 369 ITR 284 held that when the contract work allotted to sub contractor on commission basis and the ld AO found such transaction are not real transaction the ld AO should have made addition in respect of commission earned on such transaction not entire transaction as undisclosed income of the assessee. g] That in the 2011-12, the department had accepted the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 374/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…rising from alleged transaction had been treated as genuine as how the receipts of such transaction as undisclosed income of assessee. On the identical facts the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. reported in 369 ITR 284 held that when the contract work allotted to sub contractor on commission basis and the ld AO found such transaction are not real transaction the ld AO should have made addition in respect of commission earned on such transaction not entire transaction as undisclosed income of the assessee. g] That in the 2011-12, the department had accepted the…

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 2116/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…rising from alleged transaction had been treated as genuine as how the receipts of such transaction as undisclosed income of assessee. On the identical facts the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. reported in 369 ITR 284 held that when the contract work allotted to sub contractor on commission basis and the ld AO found such transaction are not real transaction the ld AO should have made addition in respect of commission earned on such transaction not entire transaction as undisclosed income of the assessee. g] That in the 2011-12, the department had accepted the…

M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 212/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) & MsFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Badhok- Ld. CIT- DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ess expenses. 3. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowances of expenses without considering the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Consulting Engineering Group reported in 365 ITR 284. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowances in arbitrarily manner without application of mind and explanation furnished by the assessee. 5. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) erred in sustaining disallowances of loss of Rs. 23,68,613/- on account of sal…

ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER vs. M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI.

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 186/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) & MsFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Badhok- Ld. CIT- DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ess expenses. 3. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowances of expenses without considering the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Consulting Engineering Group reported in 365 ITR 284. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowances in arbitrarily manner without application of mind and explanation furnished by the assessee. 5. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) erred in sustaining disallowances of loss of Rs. 23,68,613/- on account of sal…