Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. IAC

336 ITR 400High Court2011#8593 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 143personsection 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. IAC

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

…I.T.A. No.379/Alld/2013, A.Y. 2010-11 1 I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.379/Alld/2013 Assessment year:2010-11 M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Vs. Jt.C.I.T., Sahson, Central Circle, Allahabad Allahabad. PAN:AADFK6279N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014 Assessment year:2010-11 Jt.C.I.T., Vs. M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Central Circle, Sahson, Allahabad. Allahabad PAN:AADFK6279N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Praveen…

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 379/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

…I.T.A. No.379/Alld/2013, A.Y. 2010-11 1 I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.379/Alld/2013 Assessment year:2010-11 M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Vs. Jt.C.I.T., Sahson, Central Circle, Allahabad Allahabad. PAN:AADFK6279N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.12/Alld/2014 Assessment year:2010-11 Jt.C.I.T., Vs. M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Central Circle, Sahson, Allahabad. Allahabad PAN:AADFK6279N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Praveen…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. WYETH LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS WYETH LEDERLE LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…nce of expenditure cannot be made on adhoc basis i. J.J. Enterprises vs CIT: [2002] ITR 216 (SC) Page No. 59 ITA NO. 3508/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2004-05) M/s. Wyeth Limited ii. Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs IAC: [1995] 52 TTJ 198 (Del) iii. CIT vs Aero Club: [2011] 336 ITR 400 (Del) iv. Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 711 (Ahd) v. Vijay C. Kamdar vs ITO: [2009] 118 ITD 577 (Mumbai Trib.) vi. Ador Technologies Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007) 112 TTJ 24 (Pune) 75. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 76. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, w…

DCIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI vs. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8286/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…Sharda Motor Industrial Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 109 (Delhi) • Climate Systems India Ltd. vs CIT [2009] 319 ITR 113 (Delhi) • J.J. Enterprises vs CIT: [2002] 254 ITR 216 (SC) • Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs IAC: [1995] 52 TTJ 198 (Del) • CIT vs Aero Club: [2011] 336 ITR 400 (Del) Page 9 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 711 (Ahd) • Vijay C. Kamdar vs ITO [2009] 118 ITD 577 (Mumbai Trib.) • Ador Technologies Ltd. Vs DCIT (2.007) 112 TTJ 24 (Pune) (D.1) The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue relied on the orders passed…

DCIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI vs. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8285/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…Sharda Motor Industrial Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 109 (Delhi) • Climate Systems India Ltd. vs CIT [2009] 319 ITR 113 (Delhi) • J.J. Enterprises vs CIT: [2002] 254 ITR 216 (SC) • Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs IAC: [1995] 52 TTJ 198 (Del) • CIT vs Aero Club: [2011] 336 ITR 400 (Del) Page 9 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 711 (Ahd) • Vijay C. Kamdar vs ITO [2009] 118 ITD 577 (Mumbai Trib.) • Ador Technologies Ltd. Vs DCIT (2.007) 112 TTJ 24 (Pune) (D.1) The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue relied on the orders passed…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S GUNESH INDIA PVT.LTD.JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is also partly allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2021[ 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2022
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…under section 145 making addition under M/s Gunesh (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT different head. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on ground that no material was brought on record for estimating the income. The Tribunal and High Court upheld the order of CIT(A). 336 ITR 400 CIT v. Aero Club (Delhi) Best judgment assessment – Assessment should be on rational basis – Profit margin disclosed by assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily – Income-Tax Act, 1961. In case of Mysore Fertiliser Co. v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 268 (Mad.) it was held that the ITO shall make the assessment to the best of his Judgement; it means that he m…

M/S GANESH (INDIA)PVT.LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is also partly allowed

ITA 21/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…under section 145 making addition under M/s Gunesh (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT different head. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on ground that no material was brought on record for estimating the income. The Tribunal and High Court upheld the order of CIT(A). 336 ITR 400 CIT v. Aero Club (Delhi) Best judgment assessment – Assessment should be on rational basis – Profit margin disclosed by assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily – Income-Tax Act, 1961. In case of Mysore Fertiliser Co. v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 268 (Mad.) it was held that the ITO shall make the assessment to the best of his Judgement; it means that he m…

SUKHWINDER SINGH, PROP.,KARNAL vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 869/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 88

…e fair. The A.O. should not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously. His own knowledge of previous returns, local knowledge and circumstances of the assessee to be considered to arrive at fair and proper estimation of income.” In the case of Aero Club 336 ITR 400 (Del.) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “assessment should be on rational basis. Profit margin disclosed by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily.” 9 ITA.Nos.1200, 1199, 1201, 868 & 876 /Del//2012 Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Prop. M/s. S.S. Builders, Karnal. Considering the facts of the case and nature of business of assessee and history…

SUKHWINDER SINGH, PROP.,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

ITA 867/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 88

…e fair. The A.O. should not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously. His own knowledge of previous returns, local knowledge and circumstances of the assessee to be considered to arrive at fair and proper estimation of income.” In the case of Aero Club 336 ITR 400 (Del.) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “assessment should be on rational basis. Profit margin disclosed by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily.” 9 ITA.Nos.1200, 1199, 1201, 868 & 876 /Del//2012 Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Prop. M/s. S.S. Builders, Karnal. Considering the facts of the case and nature of business of assessee and history…

SUKHWINDER SINGH PROP.,HARYANA vs. ACIT, KARNAL

ITA 1201/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 88

…e fair. The A.O. should not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously. His own knowledge of previous returns, local knowledge and circumstances of the assessee to be considered to arrive at fair and proper estimation of income.” In the case of Aero Club 336 ITR 400 (Del.) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “assessment should be on rational basis. Profit margin disclosed by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily.” 9 ITA.Nos.1200, 1199, 1201, 868 & 876 /Del//2012 Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Prop. M/s. S.S. Builders, Karnal. Considering the facts of the case and nature of business of assessee and history…

SUKHWINDER SINGH PROP.,HARYANA vs. ACIT, KARNAL

ITA 1200/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 88

…e fair. The A.O. should not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously. His own knowledge of previous returns, local knowledge and circumstances of the assessee to be considered to arrive at fair and proper estimation of income.” In the case of Aero Club 336 ITR 400 (Del.) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “assessment should be on rational basis. Profit margin disclosed by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily.” 9 ITA.Nos.1200, 1199, 1201, 868 & 876 /Del//2012 Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Prop. M/s. S.S. Builders, Karnal. Considering the facts of the case and nature of business of assessee and history…

SUKHWINDER SINGH PROP.,HARYANA vs. ACIT, KARNAL

ITA 1199/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 88

…e fair. The A.O. should not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously. His own knowledge of previous returns, local knowledge and circumstances of the assessee to be considered to arrive at fair and proper estimation of income.” In the case of Aero Club 336 ITR 400 (Del.) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “assessment should be on rational basis. Profit margin disclosed by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily.” 9 ITA.Nos.1200, 1199, 1201, 868 & 876 /Del//2012 Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Prop. M/s. S.S. Builders, Karnal. Considering the facts of the case and nature of business of assessee and history…

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

…ll as the Ld. CIT(A) had not brought on record any comparable case, wherein, the net profit declared by a tax payer in the similar business, was higher, than the one declared by the assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aero Club [2011] 336 ITR 400 has upheld the Tribunal's order under such circumstances. (8) That the Assessing Officer has rejected the books of account solely for the reason that the assessee have shown the lower net profit rate. During the assessment year under consideration, no other defect was mentioned. It may also be mentioned that the lower profit shown by the assessee…