What is Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT authority for?

Once books of account are rejected under section 145(3), the income should be estimated, and no further additions can be made by disallowing expenditure or referring to unsubstantiated statements.

How many judgments cite Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT?

55 judgments on BharatTax cite Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT (38 ITR 579), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 145(3), Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 115BBE, Section 133(6), Section 145.

Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT (38 ITR 579)

M/S. Casa Del Tubo, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1705/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Casa Del Tubo, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.485/5A, 14Th Cross, Income Tax, 4Th Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Circle – 6(1), Bengaluru – 560 058. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaffc 3427 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-7, Bengaluru, Dated 23.05.2019 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 244ASection 250

…addition is only about 1% of the total sales receipts since satisfactory explanation is not offered before him. The AO has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of S. N. Namasivyam Chettiar Trading Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (Panj) 38 ITR 579 and also on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dhondiram Dalichand vs CIT (Bom) 81 ITR 609. Hence, it is seen that the addition was made by the AO on this basis that regarding fall in GP, no satisfactory explanation is furnished by the assessee before him. At this juncture, we examine the applicability of the Tribunal order c…

Shri Kamal Kumarc/O- Garg Rajendra & Co., Ca Radhika-Nandan, Be-Narain Gate, Bharatpur vs. ITO Ward-2, Bharatpur, Ward-2

In the result, the ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. K. C. Gupta (JCIT)

Section 145(3)Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 717/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 cuke Kamal Kumar The ITO, Vs. S/o Shri Gopal Singh Ward -2, R/o Nadiya Mohalla Bharatpur Bharatpur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: DMSPK9842K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. K. C. Gupta…

M/S Paramount Impex, Ludhiana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1097/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhaneshta, ACIT

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

…f accounts are not reliable. The fact that there is no stock register coupled with the statements recorded which have evidentiary value, justified the rejection of the books of accounts. It has been held in the case of S.N Namasivayam Chattiar vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 579, 588 (SC) that keeping of the stock register is of great importance because it is a means of verifying the assessee's accounts by having a quantitative tally. The absence of the stock register above was not the basis for rejection of books. The quantitative details were not presented by auditor and the valuation of stock was not certified by him c…

ACIT, Sangrur vs. M/S Aggarsain Fibres Ltd., Samana

In the result, appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 829/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)

…oducts Vs. CIT (1981) 128 ITR 682 (AD) • Punjab Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT • Howrah Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 582 (Cal.) • Orissa Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 923 (Ori) • S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar Vs. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC) • Bharat Mills Products Vs. CIT (1981) 128 ITR 682 (All) • CIT Vs. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) • CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah and Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC) • Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills Vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 192 (P&H) • R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 260 (Bom) • Bharat Mil Products Vs. CIT 81…

Pathak Roadlines, Palwal vs. ITO Ward -II(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2941/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Nippun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR

…fect was mentioned. It may also be mentioned that the lower profit shown by the assessee by itself cannot be a ground for rejection of the books of account results, as per the ratio laid down in the following cases: I. S. N. NamasivayamChettiar v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC); II. Pandit Bros. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 159 (P&H); III. S. VeeriahReddiar v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 152 (Ker); IV. International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K). (9) That merely because net profit margin is lower in the instant assessment year under appeal vis-a-vis preceding assessment year cannot be a ground of additions to the income…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Tajmahal Agro Industries Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1940/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019

Section 50CSection 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1872/CHNY/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/s. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Company Circle III(1), 33, Pazhajur Road, Chennai. Chembarambakkam, Chennai – 602 103. PAN: AAABCT0421E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1873 & 1874/CHNY/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 20…

M/S. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1874/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019

Section 50CSection 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1872/CHNY/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/s. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Company Circle III(1), 33, Pazhajur Road, Chennai. Chembarambakkam, Chennai – 602 103. PAN: AAABCT0421E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1873 & 1874/CHNY/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 20…

M/S. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1873/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019

Section 50CSection 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1872/CHNY/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/s. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Company Circle III(1), 33, Pazhajur Road, Chennai. Chembarambakkam, Chennai – 602 103. PAN: AAABCT0421E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1873 & 1874/CHNY/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 20…

M/S. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 1872/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.06.2019

Section 50CSection 80G

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1872/CHNY/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/s. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Company Circle III(1), 33, Pazhajur Road, Chennai. Chembarambakkam, Chennai – 602 103. PAN: AAABCT0421E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1873 & 1874/CHNY/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 20…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…t in the books of account or method of accounting to substantiate the estimated addition. In this regard, it is well settled by judicial decisions relied upon by the AR a nd that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Namasivayam Chjettiar –vs.- CIT 38 ITR 579 (SC) wherein it was held that “whether power to compute profits under proviso to section 13 of 1922 Act, arises only where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by assessee or where method employed is such that income, profits and gain could not properly be deduced therefrom – held, yes.” In view of the above discussion and the ratio…

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 68

…t in the books of account or method of accounting to substantiate the estimated addition. In this regard, it is well settled by judicial decisions relied upon by the AR a nd that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Namasivayam Chjettiar –vs.- CIT 38 ITR 579 (SC) wherein it was held that “whether power to compute profits under proviso to section 13 of 1922 Act, arises only where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by assessee or where method employed is such that income, profits and gain could not properly be deduced therefrom – held, yes.” In view of the above discussion and the ratio…

ACIT Cir-1, Jamshedpur vs. M/S Autoprofile Ltd, Jamshedpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 174/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ssed elaborately as above, I hereby reject book result of the assessee w.r.t. generation cum trading of scraps by invoking the proviso to section 145 of the I. T Act, 1961 by placing reliance on following decisions:- i) S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar vs. CIT (SDC) 38 ITR 579 ii) Awadhesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rahman & Bros vs. CIT (All) 210 ITR 406 iii)Punjab Trading Co. Lt. vs. CIT (Punj) 53 ITR 335 iv) Ram Chandra Singh Ramnik Lal vs. CIT (Pat) 42 ITR 780 v) Bhai Sunder Das Sarkar Singh (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Del) 42 ITR 780 vi) Royal Medical Hall vs. CIT (AP) 46 ITR 748 3.10 It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of…

M/S. Saraf Seasoning Udhyog, Churu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 775/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Ojha (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan (JCIT)

Section 145Section 145(3)

…figures stock shown. In absence ofsuch details and separate accounts, the results declared by the assessee cannot be treated as reliable. This fact is also supported by following decision. (a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Samasivayam Chettair 38 ITR 579 has held that keeping of stock register is of great importance because it the means of verification of assessee's account. After taking into account will material facts, including the want of stock register it is found that proper profit is not deductible applicable of provision of section 145 is justified. (b) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in cas…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Omnia Appliances Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3775/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Omnia Appliances Pvt. Ltd, Circle-19(1), 552, Katra Asharfi, Chandi New Delhi Chowk, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco8275E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 145Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…AO should not have resorted to provisions of Sec. 145(3). 6.15. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Jacksons House 039 DTR 0212 has held that:- “The Tribunal relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 579 (SC) held that if the method adopted by the assessee was a regularly employed method and was such that the income, profit and gain can be properly deduced therefrom, then such method of accounting, as followed by the assessee, cannot be discarded. The Tribunal also noted that the accounts of the assessee were audited and no discrepancy of accounti…

M/S Subash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 739/ASR/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ficer (AO) disregarded the assessee’s trading results of the pipe business, relying on the decisions in, inter alia, CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.[1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC); Investment Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 533 (SC); S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC); Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 13 (Bom); Ghanshyamdas Permanand v. CIT [1952] 21 ITR 79 (Nag.); and Ratanlal Omprakash v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR (AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11) Subhash Chander Aggarwal v. Asstt. CIT 640 (Ori). – also noting their ratio, and made an addition for Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 4.5 lacs (for each of the two years…

M/S. Sbash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Range -II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 738/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ficer (AO) disregarded the assessee’s trading results of the pipe business, relying on the decisions in, inter alia, CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.[1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC); Investment Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 533 (SC); S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC); Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 13 (Bom); Ghanshyamdas Permanand v. CIT [1952] 21 ITR 79 (Nag.); and Ratanlal Omprakash v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR (AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11) Subhash Chander Aggarwal v. Asstt. CIT 640 (Ori). – also noting their ratio, and made an addition for Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 4.5 lacs (for each of the two years…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jammu vs. Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Jammu

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80

…tisfactory conclusion, would, require further verification. 4.3 There is, in view of the fore-going, substantial basis for the AO to regard the assessee’s accounts as unreliable, for which he relies on the decisions in CIT v. S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC); Bhai Sundar Dass, Sardar Singh (P.) Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 106 (Del); Awadhesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rehman & Bros. v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 406 (All). The ld. CIT(A) has, without meeting these objections by the AO, summarily stated that in-as-much as account books were produced - which we have found as not, held the rejection of accounts as not valid…

Ace Build Tech, New Delhi vs. ADIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2898/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 43BSection 44A

…after rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3) and applied net profit rate of 10% after quoting following judicial pronouncement; (i) Awdesh Partap Singh Abdul Rehman & Bros vs. CIT, (1994) 76 Taxman 106 (All). (ii) S.N. Namasivayan Chettier Vs. CIT, (1960) 38 ITR 579 (SC). Apart from that, he also made addition of Rs.1,19,909/- on account of payment of employees contribution of PF on the ground that same was paid beyond the due date. The later addition got deleted from the first appellate proceedings, but the ld. CIT (A) has upheld the rejection of books of account on the ground that same was not produced befo…

Laxmi Narain Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

ITA 851/JPR/2015[2112-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2018AY 2112-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT) &

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…herefore, in view of the facts discussed above, the books of accounts of the assessee are being rejected by invoking provision of section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. In view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of S. N. Namasivayam Chettiar V/s CIT 38 ITR 579 and reliance can be placed on the case of Ved Prakash V/s CIT 191 CTR 168/ 210 ITR 486. 8. In view of the facts mentioned above and circumstance of the case, provisions of section 145(3) are invoked and books of account are rejected. The Net Profit rate of 5.75% is applied on total contract receipts of Rs. 58,80,71,121/-, which gives net profit of…

Laxmi Narain Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

ITA 850/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT) &

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…herefore, in view of the facts discussed above, the books of accounts of the assessee are being rejected by invoking provision of section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. In view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of S. N. Namasivayam Chettiar V/s CIT 38 ITR 579 and reliance can be placed on the case of Ved Prakash V/s CIT 191 CTR 168/ 210 ITR 486. 8. In view of the facts mentioned above and circumstance of the case, provisions of section 145(3) are invoked and books of account are rejected. The Net Profit rate of 5.75% is applied on total contract receipts of Rs. 58,80,71,121/-, which gives net profit of…

Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT

What is Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Namasivayam Chettiar v. CIT

M/S. Casa Del Tubo, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1), Bengaluru

Shri Kamal Kumarc/O- Garg Rajendra & Co., Ca Radhika-Nandan, Be-Narain Gate, Bharatpur vs. ITO Ward-2, Bharatpur, Ward-2

M/S Paramount Impex, Ludhiana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

ACIT, Sangrur vs. M/S Aggarsain Fibres Ltd., Samana

Pathak Roadlines, Palwal vs. ITO Ward -II(1), Faridabad

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Tajmahal Agro Industries Pvt Ltd., Chennai

M/S. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

M/S. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

M/S. Tajmahal Agro Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

Lal Baba Seamless Tubes (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

ACIT Cir-1, Jamshedpur vs. M/S Autoprofile Ltd, Jamshedpur

M/S. Saraf Seasoning Udhyog, Churu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Jhunjhunu

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Omnia Appliances Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

M/S Subash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range II, Jalandhar

M/S. Sbash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Range -II, Jalandhar

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jammu vs. Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Jammu

Ace Build Tech, New Delhi vs. ADIT, Gurgaon

Laxmi Narain Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Laxmi Narain Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur