CIT v. President Industries

258 ITR 654High Court2002#148 most cited

What is CIT v. President Industries authority for?

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

471

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. President Industries · 258 ITR 654 · Gujarat High Court · rejection of books of account · unaccounted sales · undisclosed sales · on-money receipts · profit element · net profit embedded · section 145(3) · section 132 · section 153A

Also reported as

124 Taxmann 654158 CTR 372134 TTJ 129

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132Section 148Section 153ASection 115BBESection 142(1)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 256(1)on money receiptsection 256project completion methodsurrender of incomeon-moneysection 69bsection 292crejection of books of accountloose paperssection 145(3)retracted statement

Judgments citing CIT v. President Industries

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Grace Development Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 712/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Neeraja Sarma.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Devendra Jain.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…lant from seven scrap dealers as bogus as the consumption stood fully proved - it has accepted the contention of the appellant that if the purchases are bogus then it would not be possible to manufacture the goods that has been manufactured. > Kulwant Singh, 134 TTJ 129, The ITAT Delhi Bench held that when search and seizure has been - conducted and when the seized evidence does not contain any material to show that the assessee was carrying on accommodation entry business in a clandestine manner, no undisclosed income could be computed by the ld. A.O. merely on the basis of information received from the Sales-…

ACIT, Circle-2, Alwar vs. Sewa Steel Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 573/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.573& 181/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2012-13& 2013-14 The ACIT Circle-2, Alwar cuke Vs. M/s. Sewa Steel Pvt. Ltd. E-90-C, Industrial Area, Tijara Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 4307 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Laxman Singh, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Laxman Singh, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@
Section 43(1)

…as perversity of approach It was concluded that whether the rate was low or high, would depend upon the facts of each case. A fervent reliance was placed on a decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court pronounced in the case of CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Guj.)[supra] and therein ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR VS M/S. SEWA STEEL PVT LTD. BHIWADI also a conclusion was made that on account of survey conducted at the premises of the assessee undisclosed sales were found and the AO had made addition of entire sale-proceeds as undisclosed income. The CIT(Appeals) affirmed the addition but the Appellate Tribuna…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 588/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…wance to either 5% or 12.5% based on the GP/NP disclosed by the appellant, nature of trade etc. While arriving at that conclusion the binding decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Courts such as Satyanaraya P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR 150, President Industries 258 ITR 654, Sum.it P Seth 2013 356 ITR 451, Bholanath Poly fab (2013) 355 ITR 290, Mayank Diamonds TA No. 200 of 2003 dated 07.11.2011 etc. where in it was held that only a percentage of the purchase representing element of profit may be taxed. Guidance was also drawn from the various decisions of Hon ITAT in the cases of beneficiaries of the same accommoda…

Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 569/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…wance to either 5% or 12.5% based on the GP/NP disclosed by the appellant, nature of trade etc. While arriving at that conclusion the binding decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Courts such as Satyanaraya P. Rathi (2013) 351 ITR 150, President Industries 258 ITR 654, Sum.it P Seth 2013 356 ITR 451, Bholanath Poly fab (2013) 355 ITR 290, Mayank Diamonds TA No. 200 of 2003 dated 07.11.2011 etc. where in it was held that only a percentage of the purchase representing element of profit may be taxed. Guidance was also drawn from the various decisions of Hon ITAT in the cases of beneficiaries of the same accommoda…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Nagaon, Nagaon vs. Smt. Manumati Boro, Nagaon`

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 111/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward- Nagaon Smt. Manumati Boro Vs M/S. Joy Fuel Station Dhing Road, Kawaimari Nagaon Assam - 782002 [Pan : Bqepb3815M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Guwahati-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 28/02/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,39,42,814/- As Undisclosed Sales & Estimated Profit Of The Outside Book Sales At 3.9% Of Rs.2,39,42,814/- (I.E Rs.9,33,770/-). 2. That The Ld Cit (A) Has Not Considered The Fact That The Assessee Has Unrecorded Sales Of Rs.2,39,42,814/- Which Has Been Duly Reflected In Her Daily Sales Register With Identification Mark Jfs/I/1, Impounded During The Course Of Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Conducted By The Department & Has Failed To Furnished Any Supporting Documents To Explain The Reason For The Difference In The Sales As Per Her Daily Sales Register & Sales As Per Her Books Of Accounts. Hence The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Liable To Be Quashed & The Order Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Has Erred In Accepting The Undisclosed Sales As Turnover & Estimated Income @3.9% On The Under Reported Sales.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250

…se of survey, made the addition for undisclosed sale of Rs.2,39,42,814/-. The ld. CIT(A) after making a detailed discussion and also referring to various judgments including that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654, came to the conclusion that since the purchases are not in dispute, only the net profit on the said undisclosed sales can be subjected to tax and for arriving at this conclusion, the ld. CIT(A) observed as follows:- “It is noted that the Appellant during the above assessment year was running a petrol pump and the entire purchases were being made…

Mesers Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 287/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. The Dy. C. I. T. Jalalabad Road, Muktasar. Circle-II, Bhatinda [PAN:AACF G1896J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. R. Respondent by: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 09.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 15.02.2023 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, J. M.: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Inc…

Tilak Raj Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO.Ward, 34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2498/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 27

…radesh High Court CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 "That the total sale could not be regarded as the profit of the assessee. Whether the rate was low or high would depend upon the facts of each case." Gujarat High Court C.I. T. vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 "That the amount of sales could not represent the income of the assessee who had not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods; only the realization of the excess over the cost incurred could form part of the profit included in the consideration for the sales." It is an admitted fact that the en…

Tilak Raj Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO-Ward 34(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2497/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 27

…radesh High Court CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 "That the total sale could not be regarded as the profit of the assessee. Whether the rate was low or high would depend upon the facts of each case." Gujarat High Court C.I. T. vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 "That the amount of sales could not represent the income of the assessee who had not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods; only the realization of the excess over the cost incurred could form part of the profit included in the consideration for the sales." It is an admitted fact that the en…

Shamji Maya & Sons, Bhuj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 93/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shamji Maya & Sons, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Narayan Chambers, Ward-2, Bank Of Baroda Bldg., Bhuj-Kutch Station Road, Bhuj Pan : Abdfs 5703 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 19.02.2016 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. In The First Round Of Litigation, The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.07.2019 In Ita No.93/Rjt/2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Had Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Moved A Miscellaneous Application Praying Recall Of The Order On The Ground That The Alternate Contention Raised By The Assessee To Tax The Undisclosed Contract Receipts Of Rs.15,41,000/- On Estimated Basis, In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs.Industries, Reported In (2002) 124 Taxman 654 (Guj), As Relied Upon By The Assessee, Was Not Considered By The Tribunal While Adjudicating The Case. The Tribunal, Therefore, Vide Order Dated 16.09.2022 Recalled The Appeal In View Of The Judgement Of Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Shamji Maya & Sons, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Narayan Chambers, Ward-2, Bank of Baroda Bldg., Bhuj-Kutch Station Road, Bhuj PAN : ABDFS 5703 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, AR Revenue by : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by…

Me and Mummy Hospital, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir. 3, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./It(Ss)A No.11 To 16/Srt/2021 & आ.अ.सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2021 (Ays 2008-09 To 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Me & Mummy Hospital Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central 2Nd Floor, Patwa Building, Vs Circle-3, Room No. 507, Opp. Tapi Baug Society, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Varachha, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aanfm 0445 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./IT(SS)A No.11 to 16/SRT/2021 & आ.अ.सं./ITA No.40/SRT/2021 (AYs 2008-09 to 2014-15) (Hearing in Physical Court) Me & Mummy Hospital Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2nd Floor, Patwa Building, Vs Circle-3, Room No. 507, Opp. Tapi Baug Society, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Varachha, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 PAN No. AANFM 0445 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./IT(SS)A No.17 to 22/SRT/2021 & आ.अ.सं./ITA No.41/SRT…

Me and Mummy Hospital, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.3, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 40/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./It(Ss)A No.11 To 16/Srt/2021 & आ.अ.सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2021 (Ays 2008-09 To 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Me & Mummy Hospital Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central 2Nd Floor, Patwa Building, Vs Circle-3, Room No. 507, Opp. Tapi Baug Society, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Varachha, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aanfm 0445 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./IT(SS)A No.11 to 16/SRT/2021 & आ.अ.सं./ITA No.40/SRT/2021 (AYs 2008-09 to 2014-15) (Hearing in Physical Court) Me & Mummy Hospital Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2nd Floor, Patwa Building, Vs Circle-3, Room No. 507, Opp. Tapi Baug Society, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Varachha, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 PAN No. AANFM 0445 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./IT(SS)A No.17 to 22/SRT/2021 & आ.अ.सं./ITA No.41/SRT…

M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2214/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT.D.R with Shri V.K. Mangla, JCIT, D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40ASection 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 2213-2214/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/s. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), IOC Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/o. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. PAN: AALEP1840Q And आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 2345-2346/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-20…

M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2213/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT.D.R with Shri V.K. Mangla, JCIT, D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40ASection 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 2213-2214/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/s. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), IOC Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/o. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. PAN: AALEP1840Q And आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 2345-2346/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-20…

The ACIT Central-1, Bhopal vs. Shri Narendra Gupta, Gwalior

ITA 795/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Central-1 Shri Narendra Gupta, Bhopal Gwalior बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Afqpg 8055 A Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Date Of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 ACIT Central-1 Shri Narendra Gupta, Bhopal Gwalior बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) PAN: AFQPG 8055 A Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, ARs Date of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 01.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 04.07.2018 passe…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 221/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…t the undisclosed income was Rs. 2,57,000. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the entire income has to be treated as profit or there should be adoption of a method of net profit income. In the case of CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654, the High Court of Gujarat in a similar matter came to hold as under (page 655) : "Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under Section 256(1).…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 220/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…t the undisclosed income was Rs. 2,57,000. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the entire income has to be treated as profit or there should be adoption of a method of net profit income. In the case of CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654, the High Court of Gujarat in a similar matter came to hold as under (page 655) : "Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under Section 256(1).…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 219/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…t the undisclosed income was Rs. 2,57,000. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the entire income has to be treated as profit or there should be adoption of a method of net profit income. In the case of CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654, the High Court of Gujarat in a similar matter came to hold as under (page 655) : "Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under Section 256(1).…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 218/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…t the undisclosed income was Rs. 2,57,000. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the entire income has to be treated as profit or there should be adoption of a method of net profit income. In the case of CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654, the High Court of Gujarat in a similar matter came to hold as under (page 655) : "Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under Section 256(1).…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 217/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…t the undisclosed income was Rs. 2,57,000. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the entire income has to be treated as profit or there should be adoption of a method of net profit income. In the case of CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654, the High Court of Gujarat in a similar matter came to hold as under (page 655) : "Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under Section 256(1).…

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 216/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…t the undisclosed income was Rs. 2,57,000. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the entire income has to be treated as profit or there should be adoption of a method of net profit income. In the case of CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654, the High Court of Gujarat in a similar matter came to hold as under (page 655) : "Having perused the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer, the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under Section 256(1).…