SAURASTHRA BALL PEN (P) LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMLSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT MUMBAI

24 SOT 556Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#20036 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing SAURASTHRA BALL PEN (P) LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMLSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT MUMBAI

Madhucon Projects Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1326/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…le profit can be estimated from year to year and brought to tax. The -estimate of profit at 4% reasonable.' 13. The assessee has relied upon case law of SAURASTHRA BALL PEN (P) LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMLSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT MUMBAI “I” BENCH CITATION N0 2008-24 SOT 556 MUMBAI, p6where in it has been held that the profit has to be taken on the basis of average and the same should be followed in the case of the assessee. The rejection of books by itself does not empower the Assessing Officer to estimate higher income and thereby to make addition without cogent facts on the record. 14. The percentage of estimated…

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

ITA 1938/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…le profit can be estimated from year to year and brought to tax. The -estimate of profit at 4% reasonable.' 13. The assessee has relied upon case law of SAURASTHRA BALL PEN (P) LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMLSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT MUMBAI “I” BENCH CITATION N0 2008-24 SOT 556 MUMBAI, p6where in it has been held that the profit has to be taken on the basis of average and the same should be followed in the case of the assessee. The rejection of books by itself does not empower the Assessing Officer to estimate higher income and thereby to make addition without cogent facts on the record. 14. The percentage of estimated…

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

ITA 1937/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…le profit can be estimated from year to year and brought to tax. The -estimate of profit at 4% reasonable.' 13. The assessee has relied upon case law of SAURASTHRA BALL PEN (P) LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMLSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT MUMBAI “I” BENCH CITATION N0 2008-24 SOT 556 MUMBAI, p6where in it has been held that the profit has to be taken on the basis of average and the same should be followed in the case of the assessee. The rejection of books by itself does not empower the Assessing Officer to estimate higher income and thereby to make addition without cogent facts on the record. 14. The percentage of estimated…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kitec Industries (Ind) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4535/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4535/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Hitesh M. Shah
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40a

…ut pointing outsubstantial: defects in the books of account duly audited by the authorized Auditor. Appellant also gets support from various judicialpronouncement vide CIT vs. ShriniatiPoonarn Raid - 326 17W 23 (Delhi), Saurashtra Ball Pen (P.) Ltd vs. DC17 - 24 SOT 556 ('MwriL al), CIT vs. Rithilkanth Dave - 281 ITR 6 ('All.), MadnaniConstruction Corp. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 296 17W 45('Gau.), Ashok Re factors Pvt. Ltd. CIT 279 JTR 457 (Cal) and International I'orcst company vs. CIT101 JTR 721 (1&K). Thus, in view of the above discussion and narration of various facts, the addition so made of Rs.3,48,6,755/-is directed…

SAURASTHRA BALL PEN (P) LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMLSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT MUMBAI (24 SOT 556) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax