Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT

46 ITR 262Reported decision1962#9281 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 139(1)Section 147Section 44ADSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 80A(5)Section 80AC

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(7)section 10basection 158b(b)section 80a(5)section 153a(1)(a)fresh tangible materialsection 80ia(4)section 158bbdeduction under section 80iasection 10bsection 80acdeduction u/s 80ia

Judgments citing Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT

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

…pular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as Income Returned % of Income per ITR as pe…

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

…pular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as Income Returned % of Income per ITR as pe…

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

…pular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as Income Returned % of Income per ITR as pe…

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

…pular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as Income Returned % of Income per ITR as pe…

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

…ctronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. iii. iv. V. vi. vii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H). What follows from the above discussion is that the rate of profit to be the average profit reported in preceding 3 years, which in the present case works out as under: - AY Turnover as per ITR Income Returned as per ITR % of Income Retu…

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 185/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…pular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H) 9. In this case the CIT(A) merely estimated the taxable income at 12% of the gross receipts. On appeal before the CIT(A), while estimating the profit at 12% of the contract receipts, the CIT(A) neither referred to any material n…

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 184/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…pular Electronic Co. P. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 630 (Cal) ii. Baliah v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 182 (Mys) iii. Muniratham Mudaliar v. CIT [1964] 51 itr 644 (Mad) iv. Kodidasn Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 735 (AP) v. Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam) vi. Swamy Bros v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 123 (Ker) vii. CIT v. Chopra Bros (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2001] 252 ITR 412 (P&H) 9. In this case the CIT(A) merely estimated the taxable income at 12% of the gross receipts. On appeal before the CIT(A), while estimating the profit at 12% of the contract receipts, the CIT(A) neither referred to any material n…

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144Section 145

…State of Bihar (1957) 8 STC 770 (SC); Sune of Kerala v. C. Velukutty 11966) 60 ITE 239 (SC); State of Orissa, Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo (1970) 76 IT 690 (SC): Brij Bhusan Lal Pardaman Kumar v. CIT (1978) 115 TIR 524 (SC); Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam RVS and Sons Dairy Farm v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 764 (Mad): International Forest Co v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K): M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Ker); Ramchandra Ramnivas v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 501 (Orissa Action Electricals v. Deputy CII [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (Gauhati…

M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2438/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 43B

…of Kerala v. C. Velukutty [1966] 60 ITR 239 (SC); State of Orissa v. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo [1970] 76 ITR 690 (SC); Brij Bhusan Lal Parduman 12 ITA 2419, CO 181, ITA 2438/Ahd/2015 Kumar v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC); Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam); R.V.S. and Sons Dairy Farm v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 764 (Mad); International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J & K) ; M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Ker); Ramchandra Ramnivas v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 501 (Orissa); Action Electricals v. Deputy CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 2…

THE ITO, WARD-4(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2419/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 43B

…of Kerala v. C. Velukutty [1966] 60 ITR 239 (SC); State of Orissa v. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo [1970] 76 ITR 690 (SC); Brij Bhusan Lal Parduman 12 ITA 2419, CO 181, ITA 2438/Ahd/2015 Kumar v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC); Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (Assam); R.V.S. and Sons Dairy Farm v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 764 (Mad); International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J & K) ; M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Ker); Ramchandra Ramnivas v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 501 (Orissa); Action Electricals v. Deputy CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 2…

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3949/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

…the basis of best judgment. In other words, that assessment must be based on some relevant material. It is not a power that can be exercised under the sweet will and pleasure of the concerned authorities." 3.50 In Brij Bhusan Lal Parduman Kumar vs. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 262 (Assam) : TC11R.266 the Supreme Court once again observed that even though arbitrariness cannot be avoided in a best judgment assessment, the same must not be capricious but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material. 3.51 In S.M. Hassan vs. New Gramaphone House AIR 1977 SC 1788, the Supreme Court opined that an assessing authority w…

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

ITA 946/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

…the basis of best judgment. In other words, that assessment must be based on some relevant material. It is not a power that can be exercised under the sweet will and pleasure of the concerned authorities." 3.50 In Brij Bhusan Lal Parduman Kumar vs. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 262 (Assam) : TC11R.266 the Supreme Court once again observed that even though arbitrariness cannot be avoided in a best judgment assessment, the same must not be capricious but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material. 3.51 In S.M. Hassan vs. New Gramaphone House AIR 1977 SC 1788, the Supreme Court opined that an assessing authority w…