CIT v. Popular Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd.

203 ITR 630High Court1993#4634 most cited

What is CIT v. Popular Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Past financial performance is the best guide for making a fair estimation of income, especially when invoking Section 145(3) for rejecting book results.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Popular Electric Co · past history best guide · fair estimation · section 145(3) · rejection of books · best judgment assessment · income estimation

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 1961Section 144Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 155bbesection 80ia(7)section 2(9)section 10basection 147(1)section 80a(5)section 66section 158b(b)bogus share capitalsection 80aconus of proofsection 153a(1)(a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Popular Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd.

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/o 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABVPN3963B CO No. 09/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Vs Income Tax Officer, R/o 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, Ward-49(3), Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABVPN3963B Assessee by : Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Ku…

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Grandiose Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4Th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaagca5371D अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By Shri Rahul Raman, Cit Dr : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2020

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील िं./ ITA No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/s Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAAGCA5371D अपीलार्थी की ओ…

Jagjit Singh Arora, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 15/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 194

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Jagjeet Singh Arora Vs. The ITO D-34, Transport Nagar Ward-1(1), Udaipur Udaipur (Rajasthan) PAN NO: ASSPS0091D Appellant Respondent Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Assessee by : Revenue by : Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 28/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28 /11/2019 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 29/11/2018 of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1) Un…

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

…ay 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) has made a fair estimation in conformity of the above settled judicial guideline. On the contrary…

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

…ust (2008) 220 CTR 105 (SC)/308 ITR 161 (SC), CIT v/s K.J. Business Centre (2009) 24 DTR 99 (Del.). We may 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 declar…

CIT v. Popular Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. (203 ITR 630) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax