Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

90 ITR 271Supreme Court of India1973#380 most cited

What is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali authority for?

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

232

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali · best judgment assessment · rejection of books of account · Section 144 Income Tax Act · Section 145(3) Income Tax Act · appellate authority power · substitution of AO's judgment · rational basis assessment · estimation of income · assessee non-compliance · arbitrary or capricious assessment · bona fide estimate

Also reported as

32 STC 77

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 132(4)Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 147Section 144Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 132(3)section 13(1)(c)section 131(1)section 13(1)section 132(4a)dumb documentssection 153a(1)(b)best judgment assessmentloose papersretracted statementrejection of books of accountsection 250(4)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemption), Vijayawada vs. Sri Kesava Educational Society`, Hyderabad

ITA 89/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Mahanandeeswara Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 88/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Saraswathi Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 87/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Bharat Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 289/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Saraswathi Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 288/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 287/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Surya Educational Society, Hydeerabad

ITA 286/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Mahanandeeswara Educational Soceity, Hyderabad

ITA 285/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Venkateswara Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 284/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Sri Keshava Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 283/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Kesava Reddy Educational Trust, Hyderabad

ITA 282/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Keshava Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 281/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.87 & 288/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

…of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous as CIT(A) has erroneously relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (SC) 90 ITR 271 (SC) which is not applicable in this case as the decision of Hon’ble SC is on the Sales Tax Act which does 11 not have provision for best judgment assessment whereas Income Tax Act has section 144. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in deciding that best judgment assessment is not valid when as per section 144 the onl…

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 717/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

ACIT, Circle - 1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 716/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 715/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 714/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 647/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educaional and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 646/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 645/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 644/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…