CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain

296 ITR 324High Court2008#2129 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain authority for?

When business income is estimated, disallowances under Section 40A(3) for cash payments and Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS should not be made.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain · 296 ITR 324 · Section 40A(3) disallowance · Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance · estimated income · best judgment assessment · cash expenditure · TDS default · search assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153DSection 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 153aofsection 153b(1)(b)unexplained jewellerylegal expensesannual valuesection 40a(3)section 132(4a)rule of consistencysection 40aappeal before cit(a)section 40section 194c

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain

Puradakoppalu Battegowda Karigowda, Mandya vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1023/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…wari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (Allahabad); b. Madras High Court in CIT v S Mohammed Dhurabudeen [Tax Case (Appeal) No. 885/2007]; ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 10 c. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT (Central) v Smt Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab & Haryana); d. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT (Central) v Gobind Ram (2014) 48 taxmann.com 14 (Punjab & Haryana); e. Madras High Court in CIT v Amman Steel & Allied Industries (2015) 377 ITR 568 (Madras); f. Rajasthan High Court in PCIT v Jadau Jewellers & Manufactures (P) Ltd (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Rajasthan). 9. The ld AR also presented…

Puradakoppalu Battegowda Karigowda, Mandya vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1022/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…wari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (Allahabad); b. Madras High Court in CIT v S Mohammed Dhurabudeen [Tax Case (Appeal) No. 885/2007]; ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 10 c. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT (Central) v Smt Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab & Haryana); d. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT (Central) v Gobind Ram (2014) 48 taxmann.com 14 (Punjab & Haryana); e. Madras High Court in CIT v Amman Steel & Allied Industries (2015) 377 ITR 568 (Madras); f. Rajasthan High Court in PCIT v Jadau Jewellers & Manufactures (P) Ltd (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Rajasthan). 9. The ld AR also presented…

Puradakoppalu Battegowda Karigowda, Mandya vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1021/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…wari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (Allahabad); b. Madras High Court in CIT v S Mohammed Dhurabudeen [Tax Case (Appeal) No. 885/2007]; ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 10 c. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT (Central) v Smt Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab & Haryana); d. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT (Central) v Gobind Ram (2014) 48 taxmann.com 14 (Punjab & Haryana); e. Madras High Court in CIT v Amman Steel & Allied Industries (2015) 377 ITR 568 (Madras); f. Rajasthan High Court in PCIT v Jadau Jewellers & Manufactures (P) Ltd (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Rajasthan). 9. The ld AR also presented…

M/S. Dineshchandra R.Agrawal Infracon Pvt.Ltd., Deesa vs. The Jt.CIT, B.K.Range, Palanpur

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1754/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 234BSection 271Section 40A(3)

…o treated the aforesaid bearer cheque as “account payee cheque” and deposited the money in the bank along with other account payee cheques. The genuineness and details of the payee/transaction are not also doubted. In the case of Ramaditya Investments Vs. CIT 296 ITR 324, it was held that the provisions of section 40A(3) are not attracted where the parties are identified and there was no material on record to doubt the genuineness of payment. In the case of Walford Transport vs. CIT 240 ITR 902 at page 906, it was held that where a transaction is found to be genuine and the identity of the payee is established, a…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO had conducted no enquiry in respect of unsecured l…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO had conducted no enquiry in respect of unsecured l…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO had conducted no enquiry in respect of unsecured l…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO had conducted no enquiry in respect of unsecured l…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO had conducted no enquiry in respect of unsecured l…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d on the purchase or sundry creditors arising from those purchases by relying on the books of accounts that have been rejected u/s 145 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 302 ITR 246 (P&H) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. ii) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) CIT v. Santosh Jain iii) 223 Taxman 24 (P&H) CIT v. Dulla Ram Labur Contractor iv) ITA No. 418/Chd/2015 and 446/Chd/2015 dated 12.82015 CIT v. Hind Agro Industries ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 29 5.2 On the issue of allegation by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO had conducted no enquiry in respect of unsecured l…

M/S Argent Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT, C.Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 401/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133A

…undisclosed income of the assessee cannot be quantified. Moreover, once the undisclosed income is being determined in an estimation basis, the provisions of Section 40A(3) cannot be applied as held by the Hon’ble High Courts in the cases of Smt. Santosh Jain (296 ITR 324) (P&H) and Banwari Lal Banshidhar, 229 ITR 229 (All.) 6.12 On the issue of what should be the reasonable profit margin which should be applied, the assessee contends that the profit margin shown by it in its books of 19.97% is much higher than the margin shown in the construction industry where even margin of 8% is considered to be reasonable. It…

Vinayak Mhatre, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 26, Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen,, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 44A

…ITA Nos. 2559 to 2562/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 1 M/s Vinayak Mhatre Vs. Pr. CIT -26 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.2559 to 2562/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2011-12) M/s Vinayak Mhatre Pr. CIT-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan CHS Vs. 4th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 PAN No. AEEPM0882N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Mani Jain, A.R Revenue by : Shri Kipgen,,…

Vinayak Mhatre, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 26, Mumbai

ITA 2560/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen,, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 44A

…ITA Nos. 2559 to 2562/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 1 M/s Vinayak Mhatre Vs. Pr. CIT -26 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.2559 to 2562/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2011-12) M/s Vinayak Mhatre Pr. CIT-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan CHS Vs. 4th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 PAN No. AEEPM0882N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Mani Jain, A.R Revenue by : Shri Kipgen,,…

Vinayak Mhatre, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 26, Mumbai

ITA 2559/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen,, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 44A

…ITA Nos. 2559 to 2562/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 1 M/s Vinayak Mhatre Vs. Pr. CIT -26 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.2559 to 2562/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2011-12) M/s Vinayak Mhatre Pr. CIT-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan CHS Vs. 4th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 PAN No. AEEPM0882N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Mani Jain, A.R Revenue by : Shri Kipgen,,…

M/S Argent Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 4(1), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 400/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 153C

…undisclosed income of the assessee cannot be quantified. Moreover, once the undisclosed income is being determined in an estimation basis, the provisions of Section 40A(3) cannot be applied as held by the Hon‟ble High Courts in the cases of Smt. Santosh Jain (296 ITR 324) (P & H) and Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229) (All.) 6.13. On the issue of what should be the reasonable profit margin which should be applied, the assessee contends that the profit margin shown by it in its books of 19.97% is much higher than the margin shown in the construction industry where even margin of 8% is considered to be reasonable…

Gonugunta Venkateswarlu, Kandukur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ongole

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1796/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi(Through Virtual Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Subramanyam TFor Respondent: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…on that the AO has not found any fresh material for coming to the conclusion that the income has escaped assessment and that in such circumstances, assessment cannot be reopened, he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Pr. CIT Vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, 296 ITR 324 (P&H). 2 Pr. CIT Vs. Jadau Jewellers and Manufacturers (P) Ltd., 409 ITR 85 (Raj.) 3. CIT Vs. Banwari Lal Bashidhar, 229 ITR 229 (All.) 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the AO during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, accepted the returned income of the assessee, and it was only subsequently that the incumbent AO, o…

Sri Amit Kundu, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Bankura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1395/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 250Section 40A(3)

…t rate was applied, that would take care of everything else and there was no need for the AO to make scrutiny of the amount incurred on the purchases made by the assessee. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) has held that where the income of the assessee has been computed by applying a gross profit rate, there is no need to look into the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, 1961, as applying the gross profit rate takes care of expenditure otherwise than by way of crossed cheques also. Hence, we are of the view that the addition made by AO a…

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…upra) as well as in fact the earlier decisions by the said court, besides being (AY 2012-13) ITO v. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa inconsistent with that by the Apex Court as well as the jurisdictional High Court cited supra. The decision in CIT v. Santosh Jain [2008] 296 ITR 324 (P&H), rendered following CIT v. Banwari Lal Bansidhar [1998] 229 ITR 229 (All), also relied upon, is on a different footing. The income having been estimated on rejection of accounts, there was no specific deduction qua the impugned expenditure for section 40A(3) to apply. The same has no application to the instant case. 3.3 The assessee has ta…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. Subhash D. Chaudhary Prop.M/S.Sobita Enterprises., Mumbai

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

ITA 5146/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…s of Accounts are rejected invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act there is no justification in invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act for making separate addition. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jan [296 ITR 324] and CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [302 ITR 246]. (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that assessee is into wholesale trader in paper and the gross profit margin of the assessee is allowed 5 to 8% and therefore the estimation of profit element on purchases @12.5% is not justifie…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. Subhash D. Chaudhary Prop.M/S.Sobita Enterprises., Mumbai

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

ITA 5145/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…s of Accounts are rejected invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act there is no justification in invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act for making separate addition. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jan [296 ITR 324] and CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [302 ITR 246]. (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that assessee is into wholesale trader in paper and the gross profit margin of the assessee is allowed 5 to 8% and therefore the estimation of profit element on purchases @12.5% is not justifie…