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

Skandhanshi Developers, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 529/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

Skandhanshi Developers, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 527/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

Skanda Infra Projects, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 522/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 518/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 517/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 515/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 514/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 311/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 310/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed

ITA 308/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act 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. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement:…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement:…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement:…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement:…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 – AY : 2012-13 ITA No. 268/Coch/2021 – AY : 2013-14 ITA No. 269/Coch/2021 – AY : 2015-16 ITA No. 270/Coch/2021 – AY : 2016-17 ITA No. 271/Coch/2021 – AY : 2014-15 Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. ........................ Appellant 602, Shiv Towers, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001 [PAN: AACCR7201F] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode ........................ Respondent Appellant by: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CA Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.20…

DCIT, Delhi vs. Shalimar Corp. Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2502/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

…ince forming part of the business turnover. Its remaining twin substantive grounds of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) have no legs to stand as we have already estimated its profits @ 20% (after rejecting book results) going by Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP). Both these latter disallowances are deleted in very terms therefore. The assessee’s instant “lead” appeal ITA No. 2360/Del/2023 partly succeeds in very terms. 10. Coming to the Revenue’s “lead” cross appeal ITA No.2502/Del/2023, it emerges from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion in para 6 (page -66) onwards that the above…

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

ITA 2360/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

…ince forming part of the business turnover. Its remaining twin substantive grounds of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) have no legs to stand as we have already estimated its profits @ 20% (after rejecting book results) going by Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP). Both these latter disallowances are deleted in very terms therefore. The assessee’s instant “lead” appeal ITA No. 2360/Del/2023 partly succeeds in very terms. 10. Coming to the Revenue’s “lead” cross appeal ITA No.2502/Del/2023, it emerges from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion in para 6 (page -66) onwards that the above…

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

ITA 2854/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

…ince forming part of the business turnover. Its remaining twin substantive grounds of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) have no legs to stand as we have already estimated its profits @ 20% (after rejecting book results) going by Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP). Both these latter disallowances are deleted in very terms therefore. The assessee’s instant “lead” appeal ITA No. 2360/Del/2023 partly succeeds in very terms. 10. Coming to the Revenue’s “lead” cross appeal ITA No.2502/Del/2023, it emerges from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion in para 6 (page -66) onwards that the above…

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

ITA 2853/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

…ince forming part of the business turnover. Its remaining twin substantive grounds of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) have no legs to stand as we have already estimated its profits @ 20% (after rejecting book results) going by Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP). Both these latter disallowances are deleted in very terms therefore. The assessee’s instant “lead” appeal ITA No. 2360/Del/2023 partly succeeds in very terms. 10. Coming to the Revenue’s “lead” cross appeal ITA No.2502/Del/2023, it emerges from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion in para 6 (page -66) onwards that the above…

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

ITA 2768/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

…ince forming part of the business turnover. Its remaining twin substantive grounds of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) have no legs to stand as we have already estimated its profits @ 20% (after rejecting book results) going by Indwell Construction Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP). Both these latter disallowances are deleted in very terms therefore. The assessee’s instant “lead” appeal ITA No. 2360/Del/2023 partly succeeds in very terms. 10. Coming to the Revenue’s “lead” cross appeal ITA No.2502/Del/2023, it emerges from a perusal of the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion in para 6 (page -66) onwards that the above…