What is Pr. CIT v. Marg Ltd. authority for?

Profits cannot be estimated by the tax authorities unless the assessee's books of account have been formally rejected.

How many judgments cite Pr. CIT v. Marg Ltd.?

99 judgments on BharatTax cite Pr. CIT v. Marg Ltd. (396 ITR 580), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pr. CIT v. Marg Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 145(3), Section 44AB, Section 133A, Section 28, Section 69.

Pr. CIT v. Marg Ltd. (396 ITR 580)

Arumugam Kamatchi, Puliampatti vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

ITA 1370/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1372 & 1373/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 & S.A Nos.61 & 62/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita Nos.1372 & 1373/Chny/2025) Sri Thenu Silks, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income 214, Sathy Main Road, Vs. Tax, P.Puliampatti – 638 459, Central Circle-2, Sathy Taluk. Coimbatore. [Pan: Abafs 2142Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…m 19/11/2016 to 31/03/2017. It is further substantiated by the fact of inclusion of opening stock as on 01/04/2016 and exclusion of other transactions from 01/04/2016 to 18/11/2016. As has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the decision reported in 396 ITR 580, profits cannot be estimated without rejecting the books of account, which decision has also been followed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1010/Chny/2025 dated 02/07/2025. In view of the above, the assessee submits that the estimation of profit by the Ld. CIT(A) at 25.71 percent is very high and the same deserves deletion, more particularly when th…

Ramasamy Murugesan, Puliampatti vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

ITA 1369/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1372 & 1373/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 & S.A Nos.61 & 62/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita Nos.1372 & 1373/Chny/2025) Sri Thenu Silks, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income 214, Sathy Main Road, Vs. Tax, P.Puliampatti – 638 459, Central Circle-2, Sathy Taluk. Coimbatore. [Pan: Abafs 2142Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…m 19/11/2016 to 31/03/2017. It is further substantiated by the fact of inclusion of opening stock as on 01/04/2016 and exclusion of other transactions from 01/04/2016 to 18/11/2016. As has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the decision reported in 396 ITR 580, profits cannot be estimated without rejecting the books of account, which decision has also been followed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1010/Chny/2025 dated 02/07/2025. In view of the above, the assessee submits that the estimation of profit by the Ld. CIT(A) at 25.71 percent is very high and the same deserves deletion, more particularly when th…

Ramasamy Murugesan, Puliampatty vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

ITA 1368/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1372 & 1373/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 & S.A Nos.61 & 62/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita Nos.1372 & 1373/Chny/2025) Sri Thenu Silks, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income 214, Sathy Main Road, Vs. Tax, P.Puliampatti – 638 459, Central Circle-2, Sathy Taluk. Coimbatore. [Pan: Abafs 2142Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…m 19/11/2016 to 31/03/2017. It is further substantiated by the fact of inclusion of opening stock as on 01/04/2016 and exclusion of other transactions from 01/04/2016 to 18/11/2016. As has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the decision reported in 396 ITR 580, profits cannot be estimated without rejecting the books of account, which decision has also been followed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1010/Chny/2025 dated 02/07/2025. In view of the above, the assessee submits that the estimation of profit by the Ld. CIT(A) at 25.71 percent is very high and the same deserves deletion, more particularly when th…

Ramasamy Moorthy, Puliampatty vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

ITA 1367/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Amitabh Shukla

…m 19/11/2016 to 31/03/2017. It is further substantiated by the fact of inclusion of opening stock as on 01/04/2016 and exclusion of other transactions from 01/04/2016 to 18/11/2016. As has been held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the decision reported in 396 ITR 580, profits cannot be estimated without rejecting the books of account, which decision has also been followed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1010/Chny/2025 dated 02/07/2025. In view of the above, the assessee submits that the estimation of profit by the Ld. CIT(A) at 25.71 percent is very high and the same deserves deletion, more particularly when the bo…

Ramasamy Moorthy, Puliampatty vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

ITA 1366/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1372 & 1373/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 & S.A Nos.61 & 62/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita Nos.1372 & 1373/Chny/2025) Sri Thenu Silks, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income 214, Sathy Main Road, Vs. Tax, P.Puliampatti – 638 459, Central Circle-2, Sathy Taluk. Coimbatore. [Pan: Abafs 2142Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…m 19/11/2016 to 31/03/2017. It is further substantiated by the fact of inclusion of opening stock as on 01/04/2016 and exclusion of other transactions from 01/04/2016 to 18/11/2016. As has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the decision reported in 396 ITR 580, profits cannot be estimated without rejecting the books of account, which decision has also been followed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1010/Chny/2025 dated 02/07/2025. In view of the above, the assessee submits that the estimation of profit by the Ld. CIT(A) at 25.71 percent is very high and the same deserves deletion, more particularly when th…

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 543/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke M/s Kanak Vrindavan Resorts ITO, Vs. Limited Ward 6(2), 4th Floor-123, Jan Path, Shyam Jaipur Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACK8480D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA…

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

…the profit. It is for the AO to reject the books if he finds the books of account are incorrect or incomplete before making addition instead of resorting to adhoc disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2011] 332 ITR 537 held Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.…

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

…the profit. It is for the AO to reject the books if he finds the books of account are incorrect or incomplete before making addition instead of resorting to adhoc disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2011] 332 ITR 537 held Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.…

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

…the profit. It is for the AO to reject the books if he finds the books of account are incorrect or incomplete before making addition instead of resorting to adhoc disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2011] 332 ITR 537 held Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.…

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

…the profit. It is for the AO to reject the books if he finds the books of account are incorrect or incomplete before making addition instead of resorting to adhoc disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2011] 332 ITR 537 held Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.…

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

…the profit. It is for the AO to reject the books if he finds the books of account are incorrect or incomplete before making addition instead of resorting to adhoc disallowance as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Marg Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 580 and the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2011] 332 ITR 537 held that estimation of income even in the sear…

Incometax Officer, Bhimavaram vs. Prasad Raju Penmatsa, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 33/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री धिजय पाल राि, उपाध्यक्ष, एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/VIZ/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, FCI Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 JP Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [PAN:…

Penmatsa Prasad Raju, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 517/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री धिजय पाल राि, उपाध्यक्ष, एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/VIZ/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, FCI Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 JP Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [PAN:…

Income Tax Officer, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. Gaurav Singhi, Pragatie Steels

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 955/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 889/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Gaurav Singhi बनाम The ITO Pragatie Steels, Near Sai Mandir Ward-2, Mandi Gobindgarh Road, Nasrali, Gobindgarh, Punjab Punjab -147301 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALHPS6129G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 955/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The ITO…

Gaurav Singhi, Pragatie Steels, Near Sai Mandir Road, Nasrali, Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. Assessment Units NFAC Delhi, Jurisditional Assessing Officer It0-Ward-2, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 889/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 889/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Gaurav Singhi बनाम The ITO Pragatie Steels, Near Sai Mandir Ward-2, Mandi Gobindgarh Road, Nasrali, Gobindgarh, Punjab Punjab -147301 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALHPS6129G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 955/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The ITO…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.992 & 993/CHD/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Village - Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCM7203R अपीलार्थी/Appellant & प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent C.O. Nos.46 & 45/CHD/2024 IN आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.992 & 993/CHD/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Yea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 992 & 993/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The DCIT, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCM7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/CHD/2024 IN आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 992 & 993/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18…

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…u/s 144 is bad in law. The same deserves to be quashed. The following case laws are quoted in support – (i) DCIT vs. Swananda Properties Pvt Ltd (2020) 15 ITR OLD 128 (Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) 386 ITR 702 (Kar) (iii) PCIT Vs. Marg Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 580 (Mad) (iv) PCIT Vs. Forum Sales Pvt Ltd. (2024) 468 ITR 392 (Del) It is also relevant to mention that the Learned CIT(A) on the first page of the appellate order has also mentioned that the order appeals was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed as th…

Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 385/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 385 /Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The Acit Of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL,RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 385 /RJT/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The ACIT of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACYPP1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. AR व क" ""यथ" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Abh…

Nitesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1214/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1214/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Nitesh Agrawal Deputy Commissioner of Vs. 38, Uniyara Garden Trimurti Income Tax, Jaipur Circle, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANWPA5674M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S. L. Poddar, Adv. & Ms. Twinkle Jain, A…

Pr. CIT v. Marg Ltd.

What is Pr. CIT v. Marg Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Marg Ltd.

Arumugam Kamatchi, Puliampatti vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

Ramasamy Murugesan, Puliampatti vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

Ramasamy Murugesan, Puliampatty vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

Ramasamy Moorthy, Puliampatty vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

Ramasamy Moorthy, Puliampatty vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

Incometax Officer, Bhimavaram vs. Prasad Raju Penmatsa, Bhimavaram

Penmatsa Prasad Raju, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

Income Tax Officer, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. Gaurav Singhi, Pragatie Steels

Gaurav Singhi, Pragatie Steels, Near Sai Mandir Road, Nasrali, Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. Assessment Units NFAC Delhi, Jurisditional Assessing Officer It0-Ward-2, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Rajkot

Nitesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur