Ganga Prasad Sharma v. CIT

127 ITR 27High Court1981#11871 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234BSection 142(1)Section 234ASection 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 251(l)(a)audi alteram partembest judgment assessmentsection 251(2)section 44asection 246section 44adsection 246asection 251section 44reopening of assessmentsection 69c

Judgments citing Ganga Prasad Sharma v. CIT

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…CIT Vs. S. Sen, (1949) 17 ITR 355 (Orissa); Singh Engineering Works Vs. CIT , (1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530, 553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker.)]. In making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does not possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure he likes and that although he is not bound by strict judicial principles he shoul…

Puneet Singhvi, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

…CIT Vs. S. Sen, (1949) 17 ITR 355 (Orissa); Singh Engineering Works Vs. CIT , (1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530, 553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker.)]. In making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does not possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure he likes and that although he is not bound by strict judicial principles he shoul…

Mustafa Katthawala, Kota vs. DCIT ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 1156/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 45(3)

…Works Vs. CIT, (1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530, 553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker.)]. In making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does not possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure he likes and that although he is not bound by strict judicial principles he should be guided by rules of justice, equity and good conscience [A…

Vimladevi Agrotech Limited, Kota vs. ACIT, WD -1(2), Kota

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

ITA 1065/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

…CIT Vs. S. Sen, (1949) 17 ITR 355 (Orissa); Singh Engineering Works Vs. CIT , (1953) 24 ITR 93 (All); M.A. Rauf Vs. CIT, (1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530, 553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker.)]. In making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does not possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure he likes and that although he is not bound by strict judicial principles he shou…

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. Iroward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 893/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.890, 891, 892 & 893/Chny/2024 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Karuppannan Thulasimani, The Income Tax Officer , 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Vs. Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Periyasemur, Erode-638004. [Pan: Admpt 5801H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) Lmथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 144Section 148

…- available in Form 26 AS. The A.O in assessment order further noted as under: “It is settled law that there is certain degree of guess work in best judgment assessment as held by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ganga Prasad Sharma vs. CIT 127 ITR 27 (MP). Therefore, considering the nature of work, surrounding facts of the case as well as on the basis of materials available on record, l apply a fair and reasonable net income ratio @8%,on total contract receipts of Rs. 5,13,96,081 taking into account comparative net income in contract works. Therefore, the net, income for considered as 8% of IT…

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 892/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.890, 891, 892 & 893/Chny/2024 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Karuppannan Thulasimani, The Income Tax Officer , 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Vs. Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Periyasemur, Erode-638004. [Pan: Admpt 5801H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) Lmथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 144Section 148

…- available in Form 26 AS. The A.O in assessment order further noted as under: “It is settled law that there is certain degree of guess work in best judgment assessment as held by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ganga Prasad Sharma vs. CIT 127 ITR 27 (MP). Therefore, considering the nature of work, surrounding facts of the case as well as on the basis of materials available on record, l apply a fair and reasonable net income ratio @8%,on total contract receipts of Rs. 5,13,96,081 taking into account comparative net income in contract works. Therefore, the net, income for considered as 8% of IT…

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 891/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.890, 891, 892 & 893/Chny/2024 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Karuppannan Thulasimani, The Income Tax Officer , 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Vs. Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Periyasemur, Erode-638004. [Pan: Admpt 5801H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) Lmथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 144Section 148

…- available in Form 26 AS. The A.O in assessment order further noted as under: “It is settled law that there is certain degree of guess work in best judgment assessment as held by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ganga Prasad Sharma vs. CIT 127 ITR 27 (MP). Therefore, considering the nature of work, surrounding facts of the case as well as on the basis of materials available on record, l apply a fair and reasonable net income ratio @8%,on total contract receipts of Rs. 5,13,96,081 taking into account comparative net income in contract works. Therefore, the net, income for considered as 8% of IT…

Karuppannan Thulasimani, Erode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 890/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.890, 891, 892 & 893/Chny/2024 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Karuppannan Thulasimani, The Income Tax Officer , 23C, Ganapathy Nagar, Vs. Ward-1(1), Mariyamman Kovil Street, Erode. Periyasemur, Erode-638004. [Pan: Admpt 5801H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) Lmथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 144Section 148

…- available in Form 26 AS. The A.O in assessment order further noted as under: “It is settled law that there is certain degree of guess work in best judgment assessment as held by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ganga Prasad Sharma vs. CIT 127 ITR 27 (MP). Therefore, considering the nature of work, surrounding facts of the case as well as on the basis of materials available on record, l apply a fair and reasonable net income ratio @8%,on total contract receipts of Rs. 5,13,96,081 taking into account comparative net income in contract works. Therefore, the net, income for considered as 8% of IT…

Shri Patel Enterprises, Korba(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Korba

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in terms of our observations as discussed herein above

ITA 112/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.112/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) M/S Patel Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-Korba A-3, Vikas Complex, First Floor, Power House Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan No. : Aajfm 0718 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 251

…e whatsoever was brought on record nor communicated to the assessee to justify estimation of NP @ 5%. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the decisions in CIT v Popular Electric Co. (P)Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 630 (Cal.) and Ganga Prasad Sharma v CIT (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MP.) and various other decisions mentioned in Chhattishgarh Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT (2009) 12 ITJ 741 (ITAT-Bilaspur Bench) wherein it was held by the Jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT that assessment of income has to be made on available evidences as per s.143(3)(ii), which empowers the AO to go through the evidences for framing scrutiny a…

Ganga Prasad Sharma v. CIT (127 ITR 27) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax