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

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

ITA 2767/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…

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

ITA 2766/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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 2765/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 Center Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 2764/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

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…

Ma/S Skyscraper Projects Pvt Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(2), Kolkata

ITAT/141/2025HC Calcutta28 Jul 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 43B

…deduction was allowed in regard to purchases of the assessee, there was no need to look into the provisions of section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD(J) and no disallowance could have been made. 6 In Indwell Constructions vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1998] 232 ITR 776 (Andhra Pradesh) it was held that where the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected and its income was estimated by applying proviso to section 145, no separate addition on account of interest and salary paid to the partners could be made to such estimated income. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy vs. Amman Steel & Allied Indust…

Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl India Project Office (Formerly Pirelli Cavi Sistemi S P A India Project Office), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, ( Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/HYD/2022[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

…ditions on account of specific business expenses becomes redundant or impermissible in law. In support of this submission, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (A.P.) & Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229(All.) Finally, the Ld. AR contended that the disallowances over and above the estimated income are liable to be deleted. 13. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of revenue authorities. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and also…

Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2137/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

…is precluded from making specific disallowance towards expenses debited in the P/L Account. This issue has been a matter of examination by several High Courts and ITAT and some of these decisions are as under: 20.1 In the case of Indwell Constructions vs CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held as under- 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. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2119/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

…is precluded from making specific disallowance towards expenses debited in the P/L Account. This issue has been a matter of examination by several High Courts and ITAT and some of these decisions are as under: 20.1 In the case of Indwell Constructions vs CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held as under- 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. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Creative Gems and Jewellery Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

ITA 2821/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.AasifaKhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 2053/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Creative Gems and v/s. Assistant Commissioner Jewellery Limited, A-327, of Income Tax, Circle – बनाम Virwani Industrial Estate, 3rd 4(1)(1), Room No.678, Floor, Western Express Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Highway, Goregaon East, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai Mumbai-400063, Maharashtra - 400 020, Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCC6889Q .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" ITA 2821/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner…

Creative Gems and Jewellery Limited, Goregaon East Mumbai vs. Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, Revenue’s appeal inITA 2821/MUM/2024

ITA 2053/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.AasifaKhan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 2053/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Creative Gems and v/s. Assistant Commissioner Jewellery Limited, A-327, of Income Tax, Circle – बनाम Virwani Industrial Estate, 3rd 4(1)(1), Room No.678, Floor, Western Express Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Highway, Goregaon East, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai Mumbai-400063, Maharashtra - 400 020, Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCC6889Q .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद" ITA 2821/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner…

Bapurao Bhonsle, Ashok Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ashok Nagar

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 208/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Bapurao Bhonsle, Near Mandi Gate, Ashok Nagar, Mandi Road, Agra Ashok Nagar Pan :Ahwpb5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2025 Order

Section 143(3)

…ties regarding sundry creditors. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s books already stand rejected since he has been assessed @ 8% in preceding terms. 6. That being the case, we hereby quote Indwell Constructions vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 232 ITR 776 (AP) that any other revenue item could not be disallowed/added in such a circumstance. We thus delete the impugned sundry creditors’ addition of Rs.41,34,600/- in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 7. No other ground or arguments has been pressed before. 2 | P a g e 8. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam vs. Varalakhsmi Constructions, Khammam

In the result, both the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 304/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.303 & 304/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Varalakshmi Ward-1 Constructions Khammam Khammam Pan:Aagfv0744C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Both Dated 22/01/2024 For The A.Ys 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal For These A.Ys. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue For The A.Y 2014-15 Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

…of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prabhu Wines in ITA No.1100/Hyd.2013 dated 23.10.2013, wherein after considering the principles laid Page 19 of 23 ITA Nos 303 and 304 of 2024 Varalakshmi Constructions down in Indwell Constructions (232 ITR 776), it has been held that they are applicable only to the extent of computation of income under the head "Business" and as far as addition of cash credits under S.68 and S.69, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CITV/s. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad reported in 72 ITR 194 (SC) was followed. 8. On the other hand, the learned cou…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Khammam vs. Varalakshmi Constructions, Khammam

In the result, both the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 303/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.303 & 304/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Varalakshmi Ward-1 Constructions Khammam Khammam Pan:Aagfv0744C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Both Dated 22/01/2024 For The A.Ys 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Revenue Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal For These A.Ys. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue For The A.Y 2014-15 Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

…of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prabhu Wines in ITA No.1100/Hyd.2013 dated 23.10.2013, wherein after considering the principles laid Page 19 of 23 ITA Nos 303 and 304 of 2024 Varalakshmi Constructions down in Indwell Constructions (232 ITR 776), it has been held that they are applicable only to the extent of computation of income under the head "Business" and as far as addition of cash credits under S.68 and S.69, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CITV/s. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad reported in 72 ITR 194 (SC) was followed. 8. On the other hand, the learned cou…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Smt Rajpriyam, Rajapalayam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2047/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2047/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Smt. Rajpriyam The Dcit, Non-Corporate Circle-2, 506-C, Thenkasi Road, Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. [Pan: Arzpr-4762-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar,CITFor Respondent: Mr. R.Venkata Raman, CA
Section 250Section 68

…ssessee), therefore, no separate addition either u/s.68 of the Act or u/s.41(1) of the Act was legally tenable and therefore rightly deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) as held by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: Mrs. Rajpriyam :: 10 :: “The pattern of assessment under the Income-tax 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. Section 40 provides for certain disallowa…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Alba Industries Limited, Chennai

ITA 287/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…eference in this regard may be made to Useful reference in this regard may be made to the decision of Hon’ble the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (232 ITR 776) and Hon’ble Allahabad H and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of igh Court in the case of CIT vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229) vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229). For these reasons, we do For these reasons, we do not agree with this plea of the Revenue. not agree with this plea of the Revenue. 12. Another argument of the Ld…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Alba Industries Limited, Chennai

ITA 286/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…eference in this regard may be made to Useful reference in this regard may be made to the decision of Hon’ble the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (232 ITR 776) and Hon’ble Allahabad H and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of igh Court in the case of CIT vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229) vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229). For these reasons, we do For these reasons, we do not agree with this plea of the Revenue. not agree with this plea of the Revenue. 12. Another argument of the Ld…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Alba Industries Limited, Chennai

ITA 285/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…eference in this regard may be made to Useful reference in this regard may be made to the decision of Hon’ble the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (232 ITR 776) and Hon’ble Allahabad H and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of igh Court in the case of CIT vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229) vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229). For these reasons, we do For these reasons, we do not agree with this plea of the Revenue. not agree with this plea of the Revenue. 12. Another argument of the Ld…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Alba Industries Limited, Chennai

ITA 283/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…eference in this regard may be made to Useful reference in this regard may be made to the decision of Hon’ble the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (232 ITR 776) and Hon’ble Allahabad H and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of igh Court in the case of CIT vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229) vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229). For these reasons, we do For these reasons, we do not agree with this plea of the Revenue. not agree with this plea of the Revenue. 12. Another argument of the Ld…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Beach Minerals Sands Company, Tirunelveli

ITA 14/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1475/Chny/2023 (AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18) CO Nos.28 to 30/Chny/2024 (AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18) ITA Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 (AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15) CO Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s.Beach Minerals Sands Co. :: 21 :: Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (232 ITR 776) and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229). For these reasons, we do not agree with this plea of the Revenue. 13. In light of the above, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the total income of the assessee. We accordingly…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Beach Minerals Sands Company, Tirunelveli

ITA 13/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1475/Chny/2023 (AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18) CO Nos.28 to 30/Chny/2024 (AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18) ITA Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 (AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15) CO Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s.Beach Minerals Sands Co. :: 21 :: Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (232 ITR 776) and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (229 ITR 229). For these reasons, we do not agree with this plea of the Revenue. 13. In light of the above, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the total income of the assessee. We accordingly…