How many judgments cite CIT v. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar (270 ITR 314), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 115BBE, Section 132, Section 145(3), Section 153A.

CIT v. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar

270 ITR 314High Court2004#4014 most cited

What is CIT v. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar authority for?

No separate disallowance under Section 40A(3) is required when income is estimated by adopting a Net Profit Rate.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar · 270 ITR 314 · Section 40A(3) · Section 37(1) · estimation of income · net profit rate · separate disallowance · expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 115BBE Section 132 Section 145(3)Section 153A Section 40A(3)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

prohibited by law section 40a(3)section 40a search assessment section 145(3)section 153d section 40 section 37(1)double taxation section 37 unexplained money section 139(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 484 & 485/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat The DCIT Vs. M/s. V.S. Stone, E-172/A, Uttam Tower Circle – Sikar Ramesh Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AQVPS 7734 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kuma…

M/S. Raj Buildcon Construction Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2422/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Raj Buildcon Vs. Jcit(A), Construction Ltd., Range-Ii, Gurgaon (Haryana) 404, Welldone Tech Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan :Aadcr6387F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 3

…case the A. 0 applied a rate of 5% on the gross turn over to compute/estimate the income. Having done so, he cannot go back to the P & L A/c and make any further statutory disallowance" 5.6,5.Furthermore, in the case of CIT vs Purshottam Lai Tamrakar Uchechra 270 ITR 314 (MP) (2003) it was held that once net profit rate is applied the expenses are deemed to have been considered. Therefore, no further deduction is to be allowed or disallowed. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs Naresh Kr, Sharma ITA 3187/Mum/2011 (2011) has held that once income is estimated, there is no further ground of making ad…

Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 434/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L.Chandel (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 142Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

…e u/s 40A(3) of the Act could be made when the gross profit rate was applied, that would take care of everything and there was no need for the AO to make scrutiny of the amount incurred on purchases made by the assessee.” In CIT Vs. Pursuhottam Lal Tamarakar 270 ITR 314 (MP), the High Court held that the tribunal has rightly held that section 40A (3) was not applicable when the net profit rate was applied by the AO. ITAT JODHPUR BENCH in JAGDISH LAL v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER in 150 TAXMAN 59 (JODH.) (MAG.) has held that- Sh. Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota “Once the GP rate was applied to compute the income, t…

Amit Bhandari, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 350/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Moondra (CA)For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ported by the following judgments/decisions:- (i) Armour Chemicals Ltd. vs. JCIT17 SOT 467 (Mum) (ITAT). (ii) CIT vs. Agarwal Eng. Co. 156 Taxman 40 (P & H) (HC) (iii) CIT vs. Smt. Santosh Jain 159 Taxman 392 (P & H) (HC) (iv) CIT vs. Purusahothamlal Tamarkar 270 ITR 314 (MP). (v) Indwell Constructions vs. CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP) (vi) Singhal Builders Contractors vs. Addl. CIT 46 SOT 5.1. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. After hearing both the sides, I hold that the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account and made the addition by estimating the gros…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jadau Jewellers & Mfg (P) Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR

Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…ee is computed by applying GP rate, there is no need to invoke the provisions of section 40A(3), as applying the GP rate takes care of expenditure paid otherwise by way of crossed cheque also. x) CIT vs. Purshottamlal Tamrakar Uchehra (2003) 184 CTR (MP) 349/270 ITR 314 (MP) Business expenditure—Disallowance under s. 40A(3)— Application of net profit rate—Sec. 40A(3) is not applicable when income is determined by the AO by applying net profit rate Other ITAT Cases x) Chhattisgarh Steel Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax* ITAT, Bilaspur Bench ITA No. 290/Nag/2007; Asst. Yr. 2004-05 15th Feb…

Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

ITA 22/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6191/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, बनधम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Circle-Iii, Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, 3Rd Floor, Quoreshi Mansion, Ambernath -421501 Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane(W)-400602 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) बनधम/ Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), 10, Rudra Kautir Apartment, Kalyan. Vs. Opp Dutta Temple, Ambernath -421501 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aevpg3266M अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri A.K Srivastava सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.1.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Iii, Thane Under Section 263 Of The Income

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 40a

…n the following decision in support of his claim: A. Decision of the Honble Punjab & Harayana High Court in the case of C1T v Smt. Santosh [ain (296 ITR 324) ; B. Decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v Purushottamlal Tamrakar (270 ITR 314); C. Order of the Tribunal, Special Bench, Kolkata in the case of ITO v Kenaram Shah and Subhash Saha (301 ITR (AT) 171 (relevant pages only) D. Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Singhal Builders Contractor v. ACIT (12 Taxmann.com 199) ; 7 And 22/Mum/2010 E. Order of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in the case of Teja Co…

Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad, Ambernath vs. CIT -III, Thane

In the result, the appeal u/s 263 stands allowed and appeal bearing no

ITA 6191/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 40a

Mr. Sandeep Mangla, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly dismissed on ground no

ITA 2099/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 2099/Del./2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69

…the same. Consequently, ground nos. 5, 5.1 & 5.2 of the assessee are dismissed being devoid of merits. 12. Ground no. 2 and 9 of the assessee : The Ld. AR placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of CIT vs. Purshottamlal Tamrakar 270 ITR 314 (MP) and decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Santosh Jain 296 ITR 324 (P & H High Court) submitted that where the income of the assessee has been computed by applying gross or net profit rate, then there is no need to look into the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, as applying the gross profit rate…

A.C.I.T Cir - 1, Asansol vs. Subhasish Acharyya, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 1050/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri U Dasgupta, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…on:- • CIT Vs. Mohammad Dhurabudeen (2008) 4 DTR (Mad) 218 • CIT Vs. Banwarilal Banshidar (1998) 229 ITR 229(All) • CIT Vs. Smt. Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324(P&H) 159 Taxman 392(P & H) • CIT Vs. Purushottamlal Tamrakar Uchehra (2003) 184 CTR (MP) 349(2004) 270 ITR 314(MP) • Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1999) 232 ITR 776(AP) In view of the above, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-4-2016. (N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member ) (M. Bal…