CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd.

56 ITR 182Reported decision1965#9837 most cited

What is CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. authority for?

The rate of profit to be applied for estimation purposes is the average profit reported in the preceding three years. This case is cited as following the decision in Abdul Baree Chowdhury v. CIT.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. · 56 ITR 182 · average profit · preceding 3 years · rate of profit · estimation · Abdul Baree Chowdhury v. CIT

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 139(1)Section 147Section 44ADSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(7)section 10basection 158b(b)section 80a(5)section 153a(1)(a)fresh tangible materialsection 80ia(4)section 158bbdeduction under section 80iasection 10bsection 80acsection 271f

Judgments citing CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd.

Shri Ashokbhai Bhimajibhai Parmar, Village Rajula District Amreli vs. The ITO Ward 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

In the result, all these four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 634/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

…ITR 524 (SC). Assessee must be apprised of comparable cases assessment on the basis of comparable cases, the assessee must be apprised of while making a best judgment those cases and given an opportunity to have his say in the matter K. Baliah v/s. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys.). Action must not be dishonest, vindictive or capricious - The officer making a best judgment assessment must not act dishonestly, or vindictively or capriciously because he must exercise judgment in the matter. He must make what he honestly believes to ITA Nos. 580 & 632-634/Rjt/2025 Sh. Ashokbhai B Parmar be a fair estimate of the proper…

Shri Ashokbhai Bhimajibhai Parmar, Village Rajula District Amreli vs. The ITO Ward 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

In the result, all these four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 633/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

…ITR 524 (SC). Assessee must be apprised of comparable cases assessment on the basis of comparable cases, the assessee must be apprised of while making a best judgment those cases and given an opportunity to have his say in the matter K. Baliah v/s. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys.). Action must not be dishonest, vindictive or capricious - The officer making a best judgment assessment must not act dishonestly, or vindictively or capriciously because he must exercise judgment in the matter. He must make what he honestly believes to ITA Nos. 580 & 632-634/Rjt/2025 Sh. Ashokbhai B Parmar be a fair estimate of the proper…

Shri Ashokbhai Bhimajibhai Parmar, Village Rajula District Amreli vs. The ITO Ward 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

In the result, all these four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 632/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

…ITR 524 (SC). Assessee must be apprised of comparable cases assessment on the basis of comparable cases, the assessee must be apprised of while making a best judgment those cases and given an opportunity to have his say in the matter K. Baliah v/s. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys.). Action must not be dishonest, vindictive or capricious - The officer making a best judgment assessment must not act dishonestly, or vindictively or capriciously because he must exercise judgment in the matter. He must make what he honestly believes to ITA Nos. 580 & 632-634/Rjt/2025 Sh. Ashokbhai B Parmar be a fair estimate of the proper…

Shri Ashokbhai Bhimajibhai Parmar, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 3 (1) (4), Amreli

In the result, all these four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

…ITR 524 (SC). Assessee must be apprised of comparable cases assessment on the basis of comparable cases, the assessee must be apprised of while making a best judgment those cases and given an opportunity to have his say in the matter K. Baliah v/s. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys.). Action must not be dishonest, vindictive or capricious - The officer making a best judgment assessment must not act dishonestly, or vindictively or capriciously because he must exercise judgment in the matter. He must make what he honestly believes to ITA Nos. 580 & 632-634/Rjt/2025 Sh. Ashokbhai B Parmar be a fair estimate of the proper…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…. on the decision in the case of Abdul Baree Chowdhury v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 170 PC. This decision was subsequently followed by several High Courts in following cases: - i. CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…. on the decision in the case of Abdul Baree Chowdhury v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 170 PC. This decision was subsequently followed by several High Courts in following cases: - i. CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…. on the decision in the case of Abdul Baree Chowdhury v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 170 PC. This decision was subsequently followed by several High Courts in following cases: - i. CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…. on the decision in the case of Abdul Baree Chowdhury v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 170 PC. This decision was subsequently followed by several High Courts in following cases: - i. CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…the case of Abdul Baree Chowdhury v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 170 PC. This decision was subsequently followed by several High Courts in following cases: - i. CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. iii. iv. V. vi. vii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit t…

Akm Erectors, Ernakulam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 185/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…e on the decision in the case of Abdul Baree Chowdhury v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 170 PC. This decision was subsequently followed by several High Courts in following cases: - i. CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H) 9. In this case the CIT(A) merely estimated the…

Akm Erectors, Ernakulam vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 184/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…e on the decision in the case of Abdul Baree Chowdhury v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 170 PC. This decision was subsequently followed by several High Courts in following cases: - i. CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H) 9. In this case the CIT(A) merely estimated the…

CIT v. Popular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. (56 ITR 182) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax