SC), CIT Vs. Surjeet Singh Mahesh Kumar (1994) 210 ITR 83 (Del.), Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar v. CIT

322 ITR 349High Court2010#24482 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148B

Judgments citing SC), CIT Vs. Surjeet Singh Mahesh Kumar (1994) 210 ITR 83 (Del.), Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar v. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle - 2, Noida vs. M/S Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5906/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2022-23 Montage Enterprises Pvt. Vs. Dcit/Acit, Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, 205, 2Nd Floor, V-4, Mayur Noida Plaza -2, Local Shopping Centre, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, East Delhi, Delhi Pan :Aaccm8173H (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit/Acit, Vs. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, 205, 2Nd Floor, V-4, Mayur Noida Plaza -2, Local Shopping Centre, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, East Delhi, Delhi Pan: Aaccm8173H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Aggarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Siddharth Bhim Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 148B

…hat being the case, the assessee takes us to case law CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), CIT Vs. Surjeet Singh Mahesh Kumar (1994) 210 ITR 83 (Del.), Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar Vs. CIT (2007) 159 TAXMAN 402 (All.), Salem Steel Co. Vs. CIT (2010) 322 ITR 349 (Mad.), Telelinks & Ors. Vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 158 (P&H), quoted in the lower appellate discussion at page 125 onwards that even such an estimation is not to be an unbridled and unguided one but to be based on the very sector’s book results 7 | P a g e ITA Nos.5458/Del/2025 & 5906/Del/2025 at this relevant point of time. We thus reject the Re…

Montage Enterprises Private Limited, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, East Delhi vs. DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, Noida, Central Circle-II

ITA 5458/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2022-23 Montage Enterprises Pvt. Vs. Dcit/Acit, Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, 205, 2Nd Floor, V-4, Mayur Noida Plaza -2, Local Shopping Centre, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, East Delhi, Delhi Pan :Aaccm8173H (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit/Acit, Vs. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, 205, 2Nd Floor, V-4, Mayur Noida Plaza -2, Local Shopping Centre, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, East Delhi, Delhi Pan: Aaccm8173H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Aggarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Siddharth Bhim Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 148B

…hat being the case, the assessee takes us to case law CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), CIT Vs. Surjeet Singh Mahesh Kumar (1994) 210 ITR 83 (Del.), Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar Vs. CIT (2007) 159 TAXMAN 402 (All.), Salem Steel Co. Vs. CIT (2010) 322 ITR 349 (Mad.), Telelinks & Ors. Vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 158 (P&H), quoted in the lower appellate discussion at page 125 onwards that even such an estimation is not to be an unbridled and unguided one but to be based on the very sector’s book results 7 | P a g e ITA Nos.5458/Del/2025 & 5906/Del/2025 at this relevant point of time. We thus reject the Re…

Bholanath R.Shukla, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-2, Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 4505/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…in degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment, and should not act totally arbitrary. In Nathuram Natha lal (1954) 25 ITR 216 (Nag) and in Salem Steel 322 ITR 349 , the appellate authorities held that while estimating profits, the basis and manner of computation should be disclosed and the order should be a speaking one. Hon'ble Courts also held that any special circumstances of the assessee, which warrant a higher rate of profits should also be into account. 10.8 It is also a fact that the major expenses…

SC), CIT Vs. Surjeet Singh Mahesh Kumar (1994) 210 ITR 83 (Del.), Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar v. CIT (322 ITR 349) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax