Indwell Constructions v. CIT

232 ITR 776High Court1998#500 most cited

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.

188

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indwell Constructions v. CIT · 232 ITR 776 · rejection of books of account · estimation of income · net profit rate · disallowance of expenses · section 145(3) · business income · gross profit rate

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 132Section 40(a)(ia)Section 68Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 132(3)section 108section 10brejection of books of accountsection 30section 145(3)section 142(2a)section 145on-moneysection 132(4a)section 29dumb documents

Judgments citing Indwell Constructions v. CIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5029/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 260ASection 40ASection 41Section 68Section 69B

…in a position to rely on the rejected books of accounts 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 atleast four High Courts in the following reported judgments: 1. 232 ITR 776 (AP) @ 778, 779 (Indwell Constructions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 229 ITR 229 (All) @ 232 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar) 3. 302 ITR 246 (P & H) @ 249 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aggarwal Engineering Company) 4. 377 ITR 568 @ 580 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amman Steel and Allied Industries) 13 12. In the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5028/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…position to rely on the rejected books of accounts 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 atleast four High Courts in the following reported judgments: 13 1. 232 ITR 776 (AP) @ 778, 779 (Indwell Constructions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 229 ITR 229 (All) @ 232 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar) 3. 302 ITR 246 (P & H) @ 249 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aggarwal Engineering Company) 4. 377 ITR 568 @ 580 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amman Steel and Allied Industries) 15. In the ligh…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bahubali Neminath Muttin

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/5025/2011HC Karnataka13 Jul 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…position to rely on the rejected books of accounts 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 atleast four High Courts in the following reported judgments: 14 1. 232 ITR 776 (AP) @ 778, 779 (Indwell Constructions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 229 ITR 229 (All) @ 232 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar) 3. 302 ITR 246 (P & H) @ 249 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aggarwal Engineering Company) 4. 377 ITR 568 @ 580 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amman Steel and Allied Industries) 16. In the lig…

A.C.I.T Cir - 1, Asansol vs. Subhasish Acharyya, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 1050/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri U Dasgupta, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…218 • CIT Vs. Banwarilal Banshidar (1998) 229 ITR 229(All) • CIT Vs. Smt. Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324(P&H) 159 Taxman 392(P & H) • CIT Vs. Purushottamlal Tamrakar Uchehra (2003) 184 CTR (MP) 349(2004) 270 ITR 314(MP) • Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1999) 232 ITR 776(AP) In view of the above, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-4-2016. (N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member ) (M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member) Date: Date 15 -4 -2016 Co…

Suprakash Das., Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O WD - I, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as stated above

ITA 164/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Bhowmick, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)

…re rejected and the assessment is made ex-parte by estimating the profit. The ld. Tribunal has also relied upon the decisions of Allahabad High Court in the case of Banwarilal Bansidhar ( supra) and A.P High Court in the case of Indwell Construction –vs- CIT (232 ITR 776) in this regard. The reason as given by the ld. ITAT in the case of M/s. Chien Hsing Tannery is reproduced below: … … In our opinion, while exercising one option i.e. estimating the ideal profit by the Assessing Officer and rejecting the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer, ipso factor renounces the other alternative of modifying the book re…

Sri. T. Shivakumar, Davangere vs. CIT, Davangere

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 884/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT - DR
Section 263Section 40A(3)

…sessee to explain all the deficiencies that AO resorted to an estimation of income. Income was estimated at 10% of the gross receipts. As per the Ld. AR by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Indwell Construction v. CIT [ 232 ITR 776], no further addition could be made in a case where income was estimated. Reliance was also placed on a decision of coordinate bench in the case of Sri. Jayaram Pathak v. ACIT [ITA No.1332/Bang/2011,dt.21.12.2012]. 08. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that AO had never examined the cash payments made by the assessee. According to him, Section 40A(3)…

Sri. Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudshani, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 904/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)

…sessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, 229 ITR 229 (All) at page 232. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions v. CIT, 232 ITR 776 (AP) wherein it was held as under:- ““. . . The question arises whether in such a case any deduction on account of purchases is at all allowed to the assessee, though it may be true that a gross profit rate of 15 per cent was fixed keeping in view all relevant facts including the purchases made by the assessee. Inasmuch as we are of the view tha…

Prafulla Kumar Ghosh, Malda vs. ITO, Ward-2, Malda

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

ITA 686/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Prafulla Kumar Ghosh -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-2, Malda Malda (Pan:Adhpg 8048 C) For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca For The Respondent : Shri S.S.Alam, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 279/Mld/Cit(A)/Jal/08-09 Dated 02.03.2012 For The Asst Year 2006-07 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69B

…44AD of the Act itself such as allowance of interest and remuneration to partners in the case of a partnership firm. Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions vs CIT reported in 232 ITR 776 (AP), wherein Lordships had held as under :- “The pattern of assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961, is given by section 29 which states that the income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D of the Act. Section 40provides for certain disallowances in certain cases…