How many judgments cite CIT v. Gupta K.N. Construction Co.?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gupta K.N. Construction Co. (116 DTR 377), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gupta K.N. Construction Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 145(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 37, Section 143(3), Section 144.

CIT v. Gupta K.N. Construction Co.

116 DTR 377High Court2015#8095 most cited

What is CIT v. Gupta K.N. Construction Co. authority for?

The Assessing Officer must produce concrete material and evidence to justify additions to income, especially when rejecting books of account. A mere observation that profit margins are commensurate with past years is insufficient on its own to disallow expenses or make additions without rejecting the books of account.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gupta K.N. Construction Co. · rejection of books of account · concrete material · evidence · addition to income · disallowance of expenses · section 145(3) · section 143(3) · section 144

Also reported as

59 Taxmann.com 293

Sections most often in play

Section 145(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 37 Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 194C Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 260 section 194c section 260a commercial expediency rejection of books of account section 145(3)section 30 mercantile system of accounting profits and gains of business or profession section 145 revenue expenditure capital expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Gupta K.N. Construction Co.

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 694 & 695/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 cuke Radhakishan Beniwal DCIT Vs. Ward No. 14, Behind Kishan Hostel Cirecle-01, Krishim Mandi Road, Nagarpalika Jaipur Degana Goredi Chancha Nagaur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AGMPB3851A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :…

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 543/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke M/s Kanak Vrindavan Resorts ITO, Vs. Limited Ward 6(2), 4th Floor-123, Jan Path, Shyam Jaipur Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACK8480D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA…

Ahluwalia Erectors and Febrications Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT Cir-1 Kota, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 953/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 cuke Ahluwalia Erectors & Febricators ACIT Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-01, E-77, IPIA, Kota Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCA 0089 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. & Sh. Hemang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo…

Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd., Jaipur vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194C

…owever, we find that both the Id CIT(A) and the Tribunal have not gone into the issue of reasonable and proper estimate by applying average NP rate based on past history as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs Gupta K N Construction 116 DTR 377 as well as in various other decisions wherein it has been held that the best guide in the case of fair estimation is the past history of profit rate declared by the assessee which can be applied by the Assessing Officer for estimating such profits in absence of any third party comparable. For the purposes, past one or two year results are not det…

Smt. Krishna Jitendrasinh Jadeja, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/RJT/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ] Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2014-15 Smt. Krishna Jitendrasinh The ITO, Jadeja, Rajkot Ward-2(1)(2), PAN: AKRPJ8420A Vs Rajkot (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R. Revenue by: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 30-11-2022 Date of pronouncement : 23-12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from the order of Ld. CIT(A), Rajk…

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P .Ltd., Ajmer vs. JCIT, Range-1, Ajmer

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

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

…. 2.Past History-Best Guide: We may submit that past history has been held to be the best guide in the cases of fair estimation. However, the past history must be shown to be comparable with the present. Kindly refer CIT v/s Gupta K.N. Construction Co. (2015) 116 DTR 377 (Raj), Vaibhav Gems 112 DTR 84 (Raj) it was held: “Accounts-Rejection-Estimation of GP rate-While the past history becomes relevant basis in a case like this but if the AO wishes to tinker with the basis of past records, then some flaw has to be found by the AO in making some addition-Tribunal has come to a conclusion that in the immediate past a…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Ajmer vs. Shri Bhagchand Jain, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1271/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 145Section 145(3)

…1 Past History-Best Guide: We may submit that past history has been held to be the best guide in the cases of fair estimation. Kindly refer 17 ITA 1271/JP/2018 & CO 42/JP/2018_ ITO Vs Sh. Bhagchand Jain Kindly refer CIT v/s Gupta K.N. Construction Co. (2015) 116 DTR 377 (Raj), CIT v/s Inani Marbles 316 ITR 125 (Raj). However, it will appears that in the present case, the ld. CIT(A)has not made a fair estimation in conformity of the above settled judicial guideline. The assessee, this year declared GP rate of 2.17% on sales of Rs.9,40,65,836/- as against GP rate of 2.84% on sales of Rs.6,64,75,224/- (Refer AO Pg-…

Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 910/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ram Swaroop JajooFor Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 145Section 145(3)Section 44A

…declared a G.P of 4.73% in AY 2009-10 and G.P of 4.26% in AY 2010-11 and considering the past history, the G.P of 4.47% declared for the impunged assessment year should be accepted. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Gupta K.N Construction Co. 116 DTR 377 as well as other recent decisions in similar cases has held that the best guide in case of fair estimation is Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur past history of the assessee and has directed to apply last five years average for the purposes of determination of fair estimation of profits. Applying the same in the instant case, average of…

M/S Pradeep Kumar Contractor, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 59/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Shanmuga Priya (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…an average G.P rate of 18.39% by considering the current year declared G.P of 18.15% and earlier year G.P of 18.63%. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of 6 M/s Pradeep Kumar Contractor, Jhunjhunu vs. The ACIT, Jhunjhunu CIT vs Gupta K.N Construction Co 116 DTR 377 as well as other recent decisions in similar cases has held that the best guide in case of fair estimation is past history of the assessee and directed to apply last five years average for the purposes of determination of fair estimation of profits. Applying the same in the instant case, average of last five years G.P rate which has attained fina…

Shankar Jhalani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 40

…ar under consideration, the G.P. rate has been declared at 4.85%. AO was unable to point out as to what are the distinguishing features in between the two assessment years. No substantial question of law arises. CIT Vs. Gupta K.N. Construction Company (2015) 116 DTR 377 (Raj.) (HC) In a case where the provisions of sec. 145(3) are invoked, either the past history of the assessee or the history of similarly situated cases has to be considered. In the instant case, the AO is absolutely silent in justifying the addition/disallowance made by him which has resulted in N.P. rate of 13.7%. Assessment order is totally…

Harbans Lal Sethi, Jaipur vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

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

ITA 495/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT-. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…er any income more than declared. 9. No fair Estimation made: 9.1 Past History-Best Guide: We may submit that past history has been held to be the best guide in the cases of fair estimation. Kindly refer Kindly refer CIT v/s Gupta K.N. Construction Co. (2015) 116 DTR 377 (Raj), Vaibhav Gems 112 DTR 84 (Raj), CIT v/s Popular Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 630 14 Shri Harbans Lal Sethi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-2, Kota . (Cal), MA Rauf v/s CIT (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat), CIT v/s Inami Marble 316 ITR 125 (Raj) (DPB 31-32). 9.2 However, it will appear that in the present case, neither the ld. AO nor the ld. CIT(A) ha…

ACIT, Kota vs. Shiv Agrevo Ltd., Baran

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 453/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (JCIT)

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 453/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax M/s Shiv Agrevo Ltd., Vs. Circle-02, Kota Jahalawar Road, Kalmanda, Baran LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AACCS7224F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri F.Rahman (Advocate) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh…

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

…submit that past history has been held to be the best guide in the cases of fair estimation. Kindly refer CIT v/s Popular Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 630 (Cal.), MA Rauf v/s CIT (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat.). In CIT v/s Gupta K.N. Construction Co. (2015) 116 DTR 377 (Raj.) holding that where the results of the current year are better as compared to the past year then invariably no addition to be made. Also kindly refer Vaibhav Gems 112 DTR 84 (Raj.), to the same effect. The appellant, this year declared NP rate of 10.05% as against 9.94% in the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2005-06 (before interest,…