CIT v. Sahu Construction (P) Ltd.

362 ITR 609High Court#9029 most cited

What is CIT v. Sahu Construction (P) Ltd. authority for?

When the Assessing Officer rejects the books of account and estimates the net profit, no separate deduction, including depreciation, is allowable.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sahu Construction (P) Ltd. · 362 ITR 609 · rejection of books of account · estimation of net profit · depreciation allowance · business income

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

trade creditorsrejection of books of accountsundry creditorssection 145(3)section 145income-tax officergenuineness of the transactionunexplained cash creditsalaryincome from other sourcessection 68condonation of delay

Judgments citing CIT v. Sahu Construction (P) Ltd.

ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad vs. M.M.Construction, Moradabad

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2805/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

…consideration to be estimated at the rate of 3.5% instead of 8% of turnover as computed by the learned AO. In support of his contention he relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sahu Construction (P) Ltd., reported in 362 ITR 609 (All). The Learned AR further submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2013-14, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has restricted the estimation of net profit at the rate of 3.5% as against 8% of turnover made by the Learned AO. It has also been submitted that even the Learned AO in succeeding assessment year…

M.M.Construction, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

…consideration to be estimated at the rate of 3.5% instead of 8% of turnover as computed by the learned AO. In support of his contention he relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sahu Construction (P) Ltd., reported in 362 ITR 609 (All). The Learned AR further submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2013-14, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has restricted the estimation of net profit at the rate of 3.5% as against 8% of turnover made by the Learned AO. It has also been submitted that even the Learned AO in succeeding assessment year…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…or concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particular of income: (a) Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. Income Tax Officer [2020] 117 taxmann.com 490/183 ITD 313 (Rajkot - Trib.) (b) CIT v. Sahu Construction (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 419/222 Taxman 167/362 ITR 609 (Allahabad) (c) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Norton Electronics Systems (P.) Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad) (d) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi) 13. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the imposition of penalty under Section…

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Borda Brothers, Varachha Road, Surat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…or concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particular of income: (a) Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. Income Tax Officer [2020] 117 taxmann.com 490/183 ITD 313 (Rajkot - Trib.) (b) CIT v. Sahu Construction (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 419/222 Taxman 167/362 ITR 609 (Allahabad) (c) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Norton Electronics Systems (P.) Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad) (d) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi) 13. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the imposition of penalty under Section…

Challenge Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Noida

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

…consideration to be estimated at the rate of 3.5% instead of 8% of turnover as computed by the learned AO. In support of his contention he relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sahu Construction (P) Ltd., reported in 362 ITR 609 (All). The Learned AR further submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2013-14, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has restricted the estimation of net profit at the rate of 3.5% as against 8% of turnover made by the Learned AO. It has also been submitted that even the Learned AO in succeeding assessment year…

RG Technologis Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 20(2), Delhi

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

…consideration to be estimated at the rate of 3.5% instead of 8% of turnover as computed by the learned AO. In support of his contention he relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sahu Construction (P) Ltd., reported in 362 ITR 609 (All). The Learned AR further submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2013-14, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has restricted the estimation of net profit at the rate of 3.5% as against 8% of turnover made by the Learned AO. It has also been submitted that even the Learned AO in succeeding assessment year…

M/S Goodwil Traders, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Srinagar

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 30/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

…e. 9. We agree with the submission of the counsel that estimation is a pure question of fact and to which position there is no challenge by any party. Similar view was adopted by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sahu Construction (P) Ltd 362 ITR 609 (All.) wherein the Assessing Officer has made the additions on the estimate basis and CIT (A) has reduced the same on estimate basis and the Tribunal has further reduced on estimate basis. The Hon’ble High Court held that “Needless to mention that the estimate is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner of Customs…

Goodwill Traders, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 327/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

…e. 9. We agree with the submission of the counsel that estimation is a pure question of fact and to which position there is no challenge by any party. Similar view was adopted by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sahu Construction (P) Ltd 362 ITR 609 (All.) wherein the Assessing Officer has made the additions on the estimate basis and CIT (A) has reduced the same on estimate basis and the Tribunal has further reduced on estimate basis. The Hon’ble High Court held that “Needless to mention that the estimate is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner of Customs…

Goodwill Traders., Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 326/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

…e. 9. We agree with the submission of the counsel that estimation is a pure question of fact and to which position there is no challenge by any party. Similar view was adopted by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sahu Construction (P) Ltd 362 ITR 609 (All.) wherein the Assessing Officer has made the additions on the estimate basis and CIT (A) has reduced the same on estimate basis and the Tribunal has further reduced on estimate basis. The Hon’ble High Court held that “Needless to mention that the estimate is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner of Customs…

Shree Sudhakar Pandey, Sonbhedra vs. ACIT Range-III, Mirzapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7/ALLD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Sudhakar Pandey, Civil Line, V Acit, Robertsganj, Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh- . Range-Iii, Mirzapur, U.P. 231216 Pan-Alds03711B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 44A

…/65-ITJ dated 31.08.1965 which deals with the depreciation allowance in case of estimation of income.. However, the said Circular has been considered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sahu Construction Private Limited reported in 362 ITR 609 alongwith the omission of Rule 5A w.e.f. 2.4.1987 and held that when the books of accounts are rejected and net profit is estimated then no deduction including depreciation is separately allowable. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Saraya Engg. Works (P) Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 306/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…3. 7. We agree with the submission of the Sr. D.R that estimation is a pure question of fact and to which position there is no challenge by any party. Similar view was adopted by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sahu Construction (P) Ltd 362 ITR 609 (All.) wherein 7 I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 the Assessing Officer has made the additions on the estimate basis and CIT (A) has reduced the same on estimate basis and the Tribunal has further reduced on estimate basis. The Hon’ble High Court held that “Needless to mention that the estimate is question of fact as per the ratio…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 296/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…3. 7. We agree with the submission of the Sr. D.R that estimation is a pure question of fact and to which position there is no challenge by any party. Similar view was adopted by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sahu Construction (P) Ltd 362 ITR 609 (All.) wherein 7 I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 the Assessing Officer has made the additions on the estimate basis and CIT (A) has reduced the same on estimate basis and the Tribunal has further reduced on estimate basis. The Hon’ble High Court held that “Needless to mention that the estimate is question of fact as per the ratio…