What is Indwell Constructions v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee's income is estimated after rejecting their books of account, further additions or disallowances for specific expenses are generally not permissible, as the estimation already accounts for these.

How many judgments cite Indwell Constructions v. CIT?

188 judgments on BharatTax cite Indwell Constructions v. CIT (232 ITR 776), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Indwell Constructions v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 145(3), Section 153A, Section 132(4), Section 132, Section 40(a)(ia).

Indwell Constructions v. CIT (232 ITR 776)

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Shalimar Corp. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3068/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…d that no separate additions on account of section 68 of the Act is called for and the same be treated as on-money component only liable to be assessed at the rate of 20% since forming part of the business turnover going by Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP). Following the same logic, we hold that the receipts as advance from customer and loan from Saket Niketan are part of the estimated 50% of cash deposit explained by way of the benefit of telescoping of the on-money component. Ground 2 and 3 of assessee’s appeal is allowed and ground 6 of the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. 24. T…

Shalimar Corp Ltd, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2769/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…d that no separate additions on account of section 68 of the Act is called for and the same be treated as on-money component only liable to be assessed at the rate of 20% since forming part of the business turnover going by Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP). Following the same logic, we hold that the receipts as advance from customer and loan from Saket Niketan are part of the estimated 50% of cash deposit explained by way of the benefit of telescoping of the on-money component. Ground 2 and 3 of assessee’s appeal is allowed and ground 6 of the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. 24. T…

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 633/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P) Ltd. Vs CIT (Del) 84 ITR 106. 3. Dwarka Prasad Bajaj Vs CIT (Cal) 181 ITR 277. 4. Arihant Builders, Developers Investors (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT, SB-Ind) 106 ITD 10. 5. Surinder Pal Nayyar Vs CIT (P & H) 177 Taxmann.207. 6. Indwell Constructions Vs CIT (AP) 232 ITR 776. 5.4. On perusal of the written submission, the appellant contended that books of accounts were audited u/s. 44AB of the Act, furnished the reply along with all details/documents in response to the notice u/s. 142(1), show- cause notice and passed the assessment order without considering the reply, is not correct. Further, the appellant stated th…

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 632/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P) Ltd. Vs CIT (Del) 84 ITR 106. 3. Dwarka Prasad Bajaj Vs CIT (Cal) 181 ITR 277. 4. Arihant Builders, Developers Investors (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT, SB-Ind) 106 ITD 10. 5. Surinder Pal Nayyar Vs CIT (P & H) 177 Taxmann.207. 6. Indwell Constructions Vs CIT (AP) 232 ITR 776. 5.4. On perusal of the written submission, the appellant contended that books of accounts were audited u/s. 44AB of the Act, furnished the reply along with all details/documents in response to the notice u/s. 142(1), show- cause notice and passed the assessment order without considering the reply, is not correct. Further, the appellant stated th…

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax vs. Mohinder Kumr, Prashant Vihar

ITA 1652/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2018-19 With Ita No.1652/Del/2024 With C.O. No. 22/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohinder Kumar, Civic Centre, C-3/8, Block-C, Delhi Prasant Vihar, Delhi Pan: Aahpk7777R (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm The Instant Batch Of Three Cases Pertains To The Single Assessee Herein Sh. Mohinder Kumar. The Revenue & The Assessee Filed Their Respective Appeals Ita No.1652/Del/2024 & C.O. No. 22/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 143(3)

…Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 7. Learned counsel further seeks to buttress the point that the CIT(A) has disallowed the assessee’s legal expenses of Rs.15 lakhs in assessment year 2021-22 as well. We quote Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP) to conclude that once the assessee’s NP has been estimated herein, no further disallowance would be warranted. Deleted accordingly. 8. These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 1710 & 1652/Del/2024 and the assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 22/Del/2025 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective ca…

Property Plus Realtors, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Central Delhi 2, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

…of accounts and estimated the income, any further disallowance out of Profit & Loss Account is not permissible as has been held by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High ITA Nos.3406 & 3407/Del/2025 Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 232 ITR 776(AP). 13. It is also observed that the recipient i.e. SIPL has included the said commission in its gross receipts and paid taxes on almost 88% of the income i.e. 88% of the total commission paid by the assessee and no effort was made to evade any tax. 14. In view of the above facts, in our considered opinion, action of ld. PCIT in treating the a…

Krishna Kumar Agarwal, Dehradun vs. ITO, Uttrakhand

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3248/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Krishna Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Kumaon Brick Field, Ward-Khatima C./O- Adv. N.R. Goel, 32 E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Afqpa1977B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)

…ture. We are of the considered view that given the fact that the assessee’s books of account has been rejected under section 145(3) followed by GP addition, no further disallowance/addition is found to be warranted going by Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP). We thus delete all the remaining additions/disallowances made in the assessee’s hands in very terms. 3. This assesseee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th January, 2026 (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15th January, 2026. RK/-…

Raj Kumar & Co, Nawanshahr vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 641/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv

Section 115Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 68

…ooks of account for making the additions on account of trade creditors and also for the purpose of arriving at a closing stock.” This is the view taken by at least four High Courts in the following reported judgments: “1. Indwell Constructions v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (AP) 2. CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar [1998] 229 ITR 229 (All.) 3. CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [2008] 302 ITR 246/2006] 156 Taxman 40 (Punj. & Har.) 4. CIT v. Amman Steel & Allied Industries [2015] 377 ITR 568 (Mad.)” 26. We also find that the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Dulla Ram (ITA No 122 of 1999) dated 22/10/20…

Saadnakari Hazarathaiah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.660/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Sadnakari Hazarathaiah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Adfph7103R Proddatur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

…t, rejected the books of account u/s. 145 of the Act and estimated the income. He submitted that no further addition can be made by the Assessing Officer relying on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP) and also the following judgements : i) Malpani House of Stone Vs. CIT 3395 ITR 386 (Raj) ii) CIT Vs. Gian Chand Lakshmi Contractors 316 ITR 127 (P&H) iii) CIT Vs. Aggarwal Engg Co. 302 ITR 246 (P&H) iv) CIR Vs. Banwarilal Banshidhar 229 ITR 229 (All) v) CIT Vs. GK Contractor 19 DTR 305 (Raj) and vi) ACIT Vs. S. Moorthy in ITA No.3091/Chny/20…

Venkata Subba Reddy Karnati, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.637/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Venkata Subba Reddy Income Tax Officer, Vs. Karnati, Ward-1, Hyderabad. Proddatur. Pan:Ahjpv4271E (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

…t, rejected the books of account u/s. 145 of the Act and estimated the income. He submitted that no further addition can be made by the Assessing Officer relying on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP) and also the following judgements : i) Malpani House of Stone Vs. CIT 3395 ITR 386 (Raj) ii) CIT Vs. Gian Chand Lakshmi Contractors 316 ITR 127 (P&H) iii) CIT Vs. Aggarwal Engg Co. 302 ITR 246 (P&H) iv) CIR Vs. Banwarilal Banshidhar 229 ITR 229 (All) v) CIT Vs. GK Contractor 19 DTR 305 (Raj) and vi) ACIT Vs. S. Moorthy in ITA No.3091/Chny/20…

Aare Venkata Ramanaiah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.633/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Aare Venkata Ramanaiah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Aoopr0993M Proddatur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

…t, rejected the books of account u/s. 145 of the Act and estimated the income. He submitted that no further addition can be made by the Assessing Officer relying on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP) and also the following judgements : i) Malpani House of Stone Vs. CIT 3395 ITR 386 (Raj) ii) CIT Vs. Gian Chand Lakshmi Contractors 316 ITR 127 (P&H) iii) CIT Vs. Aggarwal Engg Co. 302 ITR 246 (P&H) iv) CIR Vs. Banwarilal Banshidhar 229 ITR 229 (All) v) CIT Vs. GK Contractor 19 DTR 305 (Raj) and vi) ACIT Vs. S. Moorthy in ITA No.3091/Chny/20…

Kohli Brothers, Karol Bagh, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 51(4), New Delhi, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 999/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 999/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Kohli Brothers, Vs Income Tax Officer, 13-A, Prahlad Market, D.B. Gupta Ward-51(4), Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfk5499A Assessee By: Sh. M. A. Ansari, Adv. & Ms. Tabbassum Firdause, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059508087(1) Dated 09.01.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. A. Ansari, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…lleged personal expenditure etc. involving varying sums. The Revenue could hardly dispute that once the assessee’s books of accounts have been rejected, no such revenue expenditure claim could be further disallowed going by Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776(AP). Allowed accordingly. 5. No other grounds or argument has been pressed. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/08/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 27/08/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…