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

Sri. Mallangouds Sankagoudashani, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 259/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Bhavani Arcade, Vs. Circle 1(1), Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Hubli. Hubli – 580 029. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate

…Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, 229 ITR 229 ITA Nos. 259 & 295/Bang/2014 Page 64 of 76 (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 that…

ACIT, Hubli vs. Shri. Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, Hubli

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 294/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 ITA Nos. 220 to 222 & 292 to 294/Bang/2014 Page 18 of 41…

ACIT, Hubli vs. Shri. Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, Hubli

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 293/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 ITA Nos. 220 to 222 & 292 to 294/Bang/2014 Page 18 of 41…

ACIT, Hubli vs. Shri. Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, Hubli

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 292/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 ITA Nos. 220 to 222 & 292 to 294/Bang/2014 Page 18 of 41…

Mallangouda Sankagoudashi vs. DCIT

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 222/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 ITA Nos. 220 to 222 & 292 to 294/Bang/2014 Page 18 of 41…

Mallangouda Sankagoudashi vs. DCIT

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 221/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 ITA Nos. 220 to 222 & 292 to 294/Bang/2014 Page 18 of 41…

Mallangouda Sankagoudashi vs. DCIT

In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed and those of revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 220/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 ITA Nos. 220 to 222 & 292 to 294/Bang/2014 Page 18 of 41…

ACIT, Hubli vs. Shri. Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, Hubli

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 291/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that though the matter was set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO for reconsideration of the issue in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions v. CIT, 232 ITR 776 (AP), however the latest decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs Amman Steel and Allied Industries (377 ITR 568) is directly on the point. He has relied upon the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High ITA Nos. 219 & 291/Bang/2014 Page 30 of 38 Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decision of the coordi…

Mallangouda Sankagoudashi vs. DCIT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 219/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that though the matter was set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO for reconsideration of the issue in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions v. CIT, 232 ITR 776 (AP), however the latest decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs Amman Steel and Allied Industries (377 ITR 568) is directly on the point. He has relied upon the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High ITA Nos. 219 & 291/Bang/2014 Page 30 of 38 Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decision of the coordi…

Ratan Taxtiles P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 527/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 527/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke M/s Ratan textiles P. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Vs. Papriwal Cottage, Ajmer Road, Circle-2, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 3760 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 595/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Dy. Commissioner of M/s Ratan te…

Amit Bhandari, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 350/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri B.P. Moondra (CA)For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…mour Chemicals Ltd. vs. JCIT17 SOT 467 (Mum) (ITAT). (ii) CIT vs. Agarwal Eng. Co. 156 Taxman 40 (P & H) (HC) (iii) CIT vs. Smt. Santosh Jain 159 Taxman 392 (P & H) (HC) (iv) CIT vs. Purusahothamlal Tamarkar 270 ITR 314 (MP). (v) Indwell Constructions vs. CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP) (vi) Singhal Builders Contractors vs. Addl. CIT 46 SOT 5.1. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. After hearing both the sides, I hold that the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account and made the addition by estimating the gross profit and also by invoking the provisions of Sect…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jadau Jewellers & Mfg (P) Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…as relied on the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Teja Constructions v. ACIT, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee's case when the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions v. CIT (1998() 232 ITR 776 was taken note of when having rejected the book result it was not the case of the Assessing Officer to go back to those very books of account which indicated non- deduction of tax at source on certain expenditures that had ripened to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia). Confining ourselves to the issue on hand we are inclined to follow the decision of th…

Mohd. Const. Co., Kota vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

ITA 649/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 44A

…books of accounts, no disallowance can be made separately u/s 40A(3).” Also Kindly refer CIT Vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229, 232 (All.), CIT vs. G.K. Contractor (2009) (PB 17-18) 19 DTR 305 (Raj.), Indwell Constructions v CIT (1998) (PB 14-16) 232 ITR 776 (AP), Maddi Sudarsanam Oil Mills Co. v/s CIT (1959) 37 ITR 369 (AP), ECI Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. in ITA No.2048/Hyd/2011, Samurai Techno Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (2010) 37 DTR 386 (Ker.), ITO v/s Kenaram Saha & Subhash Saha (2008) 116 TTJ 289 (Kol.) (SB). In this case the ld. CIT(A) made the estimation of NP @ 10.64% based on the…

M/S. M.N. Modes, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishim.N. Modes, Dcit, C/O. Gk Kedia & Co. Vs. Circle-22(1), 2044/6, Chitra Gupta Road, Chuna Civik Centre, New Delhi Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi Pan:Aaffm0837L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 29Section 40Section 44A

…are estimated it takes care of all the infirmities and no further addition is called for. She further relied on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in Teja Construction Vs. ACIT 129 TTJ 57 and also the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in 232 ITR 776. She further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Banwari Lal 229 ITR 229 submitting that the income assessed by applying gross profit ration no further disallowance can be made under the provisions of section 40 of the act. 12. The ld DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. Page 9 of 10 13. We ha…

Disha Devang Kapasi (Disha Niseet Rupani), Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(3), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5349/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2011-12 Disha Devang Kapasi, Acit, 15(3)/Present (Disha Niseet Rupani) Jurisdiction- Ito 27(1)-4, Vs. B-607, Arihant Bldg., Tower 6, 4Th Floor, Sudha Park, Room No. 412, Vashi Behind Garodia Nagar, Rly. Station Complex, Ghatkopar (E), Vashi, Navi Mumbai- Mumbai 400 077 400 703. Pan No. : Angpk 4952 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja,ARFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji Ghode, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year 2011-12 Disha Devang Kapasi, ACIT, 15(3)/present (Disha Niseet Rupani) Jurisdiction- ITO 27(1)-4, Vs. B-607, Arihant Bldg., Tower 6, 4th Floor, Sudha Park, Room No. 412, Vashi Behind Garodia Nagar, Rly. Station Complex, Ghatkopar (E), Vashi, Navi Mumbai- Mumbai 400 077 400 703. PAN No. : ANGPK 4952 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Hari S. Raheja,AR Respondent by: Shri Shivaji Ghode, DR Date of Hearing: 31.10.2016 Date of Pronoun…

Disha Devang Kapasi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 15(3)(1) New WD 27(1)(4), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1498/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2010-11 Disha Devang Kapasi, The Ito Ward 15(3)(1) B-607, Arihant Bldg., New Ward 27 (1)-4, Vs. Sudha Park, Tower 6, 4Th Floor, Behind Garodia Nagar, Room No. 412, Vashi Ghatkopar (E), Rly. Station Complex, Mumbai 400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400 703

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji Ghode, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year 2010-11 Disha Devang Kapasi, The ITO Ward 15(3)(1) B-607, Arihant Bldg., New Ward 27 (1)-4, Vs. Sudha Park, Tower 6, 4th Floor, Behind Garodia Nagar, Room No. 412, Vashi Ghatkopar (E), Rly. Station Complex, Mumbai 400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 PAN No. : ANGPK 4952 N ( Respondent) (Appellant) .. Appellant by: Shri Hari S. Raheja, AR Respondent by: Shri Shivaji Ghode, DR Date of Hearing: 31.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 28.11.2016 ORDER PER…

Disha D. Kapasi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3686/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2009-10 Disha Devang Kapasi, Acit, Circle – 15(3), 1St B-607, Arihant Bldg., Floor, Matru Mandir, Vs. Sudha Park, Grant Road, Behind Garodia Nagar, Mumbai 400 077 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja,ARFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji Ghode, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40

…after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus ground number 1,2 & 3 are allowed for statistical purpose. 7.4 Now we come to ground number 4. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP) has held: “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 that those amounts are allowed generally…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Rishikesh Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5448/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Sh. Rishikesh Sharma, 318, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-36(1), New Delhi Vikas Complex, 37, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, New Delhi Pan : Aosps3911G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Date Of Hearing 23.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 8/11/2011 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax( Appeals)- Xxvii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2008-09 Raising Following Grounds: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts & Law By:- I) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,56,54,400/- Made U/S 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act On Account Cessation/Remission Of Liabilities Of The Two Creditors. Ignoring The Confirmation Obtained From The Creditors Under Section 133(6). Ii) Reducing The Gp To 20.78% As Against 25%.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

…the case of the assessee, then in such circumstances, no further addition under section 41(1) of the Act was required. In this connection, the learned Authorized Representative, relied on the following decisions: (i) Indwell constructions, reported in (1998) 232 ITR 776 (AP); (ii) Bhandari Lal Bansi Dhar, reported in (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All); (iii) M/s. Exim Cargo Kare, in ITA No. 5134/ Mum/2011(Trib.)(Mum.) 4.14 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We have also gone through the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. We find that under the provisions of section 41(1)…

Shri Hribu Bose, Asansol vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(2), Asansol

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

ITA 2214/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 194Section 40Section 68

…smissed.” 11. Further, we may refer to the another decision as relied on by the Ld.AR passed by the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH in the case of Indwell Constructions v. Commissioner of ITA Nos. 2214 & 2323/Kol/13 Shri Hribu Bose 7 Income-tax [1998] 232 ITR 776 (Andhra Pradesh) wherein the Income- tax Officer rejected the books and estimated the income at Rs. 2,50,000. The Commissioner of Income-tax considered that this estimate was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and added a sum of Rs. 63,859 under section 263 of the Act. The contention of the assessee was that where the books…

M/S. Future Distributors, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Kolkata - 9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

…was determined on the estimated basis was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as alleged by the ld. CIT and the revision of the same by him under section 263 was not justified. 27. In the case of Indwell Constructions –vs.- CIT [232 ITR 776], a similar issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Andhra I.T.A. No. 277/KOL./2016 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 34 of 38 Pradesh High Court. In the said case, the assessee-firm having contract business in engineering works, had declared gross contract receipts at Rs.27,20,083/- and the net income at Rs.1,24,830/-. The Assess…