Indwell Constructions v. CIT

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax OSD Ludhiana vs. M/S Ceigall India Ltd

Bench: Cit(A). The Same Was Partly Allowed. The Addition Made By Applying Net Profit Dinesh Kumar 2022.10.16 16:54 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

…need for the Assessing Officer to make scrutiny of the amount incurred on the purchases made by the assessee.” 7. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of 'Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT' reported in 232 ITR 776 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 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding tha…

Kalla Viswanadha Babu, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Kalla Viswanatha Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Akvpk 9287 A Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 08/07/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

…आयकर अपीऱीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एऱ रेड्डी, न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बाऱाकृष्णन, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Kalla Viswanatha Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), PAN: AKVPK 9287 A Visakhapatnam. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri GVN Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respo…

Garlapati Jagan Mohana Rao, Machilipatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.235/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Garlapati Jagan Mohana Rao, Vs. Dcit, Machilipatnam-521001. Circle-2(1), Pan:Armpg 1332 L Vijayawada. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Mv Prasad प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 30/05/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

…stimated by the Ld. AO, the addition of trade creditors should not be done based on the books of accounts. The Ld. AR also relied on the following case laws: 1. CIT vs. Bahubali Neminath Muttin [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 100 2. Indwell constructions vs. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (AP) 3. CIT vs. Amman Steel and Allied Industries [2015] 377 ITR 568 5 The Ld. AR pleaded that when no reliance is placed on the books of account with respect to income, similar treatment is required for the trade creditors also. Ld. AR also submitted that as per the books of account the trade creditors for the year ending 31/3/2014 is Rs. 77,53…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry vs. K.Venkata Raju, Rajahmundry

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.501/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S K.Venkata Raju Circle-2(1) D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Rajahmundry Kadiam Mandal Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.153/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.501/Viz/2019) (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S K.Venkata Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income D.No.2-59, Vemagiri Tax Kadiam Mandal Circle-2(1) Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Aabfk4007A] अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan Scondonation Of Delay :

…6 of the assessment order, submitted that the assessee has agreed for the estimation of income by the AO. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Indwell Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 232 ITR 776 (Andhra Pradesh) and quoted the following paragraph : “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 6 I.T.A. No.501/Viz/2019 & CO No.153/Viz/2019 A.Y.2008-09 M/s K.Venkata Raju, Rajahmundry computed in accordance with the provisions contained…

M/S. B.Banamber & Co., Cuttack vs. CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per the direction indicated above

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 M/S. B.Banamber & Co., M/S. B.Banamber & Co., Vs. Cit, Bhubaneswar Cit, Bhubaneswar Bhairabi Sahi, Talcher. Bhairabi Sahi, Talcher. Pan No.Aadfb 2121 Q Pan No.Aadfb 2121 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri S.N..Sahu & Somanath Sahu S.N..Sahu & Somanath Sahu, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/ /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

…d to estimate by way of adhoc disallowance of expenses claimed, it is an implied way of rejection of accounts. There can be no further addition relying on the same accounts. Case laws cited : a. Teja Construction - 129 TTJ - 57 b. Indwell Construction Vs. CIT 232 ITR 776 (A.P.) 5. That the written reply submitted on behalf of the appellant, in compliance to notice u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 should have been judicially considered by the learned CIT. the (earned CIT was duty bound to examine the points raised and record definite conclusions in respect of each one of them. [A. Venkat Rao Vs. CIT, 203 ITR 64]. No…