Sammurai Techno Trading Company Ltd. v. CIT

37 DTR 386High Court2010#11582 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

penalty proceedings initiated section 44aa section 271b section 44a section 271a section 44ad malabar industrial erroneous and prejudicial section 44 income-tax officer section 263 section 26

Judgments citing Sammurai Techno Trading Company Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P .Ltd., Ajmer vs. JCIT, Range-1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MEETHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 397/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke M/s. Raj Auto Wheels (P) Ltd The JCIT 424/24, Ravan Bahici, Kaiser Ganj Vs. Range-1 Ajmer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCR 3896 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocawte jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri P.R.…

Masthi Gowda P, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…penditure incurred by him to arrive at the estimate of 8% of profit prior to depreciation and interest. The assessee relied on the decision of the ITA No.367 /Bang/2021 Page 5 of 18 Kerala High Court in the case of Samuel Techno trading Co Ltd vs CIT (2010) (37 DTR 386) (KER) where it was held that “even where books of accounts are not maintained section 44AD percentage of 8% can be guideline for estimation of income from civil works though section 44AD is not applicable” 6. The AO proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee as a percentage of gross receipts as per form 26AS in the absence of any evidence…

Manjunatha, K R Pet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…he breakup of direct and indirect expenditure incurred by him to arrive at the estimate of 8% of profit prior to depreciation and interest. The assessee relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Samuel Techno trading Co Ltd vs CIT (2010) (37 DTR 386) (KER) where it was held that ITA No.364 /Bang/2021 Page 5 of 17 “even where books of accounts are not maintained section 44AD percentage of 8% can be guideline for estimation of income from civil works though section 44AD is not applicable” 6. The AO proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee as a percentage of gross receipts as per form…

R Govinde Gowda, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 366/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ITA No.366/Bang/2021 R. Govinde Gowda, Mandya IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 R. Govinde Gowda Hangarahalli Srirangapatna Tq. Principal CIT-3 Vs. Mandya 571 415 Bangalore. PAN No.AJQPG8809C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the…

Siddappa B T, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 363/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ITA No.363/Bang/2021 Siddappa B.T., Mandya IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Siddappa B.T. No.1296, 2nd Cross Nehrunagar Principal CIT-3 Vs. Mandya 571 401 Bangalore. PAN NO :AFQPS9766L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revisi…

K R Mahesha, Maddur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 365/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ITA No.365/Bang/2021 K.R. Mahesha, Maddur Taluk IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AssessmentYear:2016-17 K.R. Mahesha Kadalur Village Maddur Taluk 571428 Principal CIT Vs. Karnataka Bangalore-3 PAN NO : AEKPM1689M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 05.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revised order d…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Anjan Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, revenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 878/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 139(1)Section 41(1)

…would be reasonable profit which can be estimated. It is seen that the assessee is showing a net profit of 6.8 % in assessment year 2010-11; 5 Anjan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.. AY- 2013-14 In the case of Samurai Techno Trading corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 37 DTR 386, Kerala High court, the Kerala High court held that in estimation of income in the case of building contractors a percentage of 8 per cent can be adopted even where the turnover exceeds 40 lakhs. In CIT vs. Vinod Kr. Bhatia 211 ITR 253 (Punjab) tribunal’s acceptance of 10% profit in case of building contractor was upheld. Even otherwise in case of…

Harbans Lal Sethi, Jaipur vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

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

ITA 495/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT-. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ion Co. Ltd in ITA No. 2048/Hyd/2011 (DPB 16-25) held that: “where the books of account have been rejected the revenue cannot rely on the same books of account for making any other addition.” 6.1.7 Also refer Samurai Techno Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (2010) 37 DTR 386 (Ker) (DPB 9-12). 6.1.8 CIT v/s Pravin & Co. 274 ITR 534 (Guj) 6.2 Very pertinently, even this very aspect has now been judiciously recognized even by the statute in terms of S.44AD / 44AF etc. i.e. presumptive taxation scheme where the assessee are not required to keep books of account which is (or the same thing where accounts though maintained…

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

…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 adhoc addition on account of the alleged inflated consumption of material and thus again considered the same accounts already rejected, hence was not a good basis. The only course left after the r…