Shri Ram Jhanwar Lal v. ITO

321 ITR 400High Court2010#8994 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 144Section 44ADSection 69A

Judgments citing Shri Ram Jhanwar Lal v. ITO

ASHISH SINDWANI,NILOKHERI, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1607/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1607/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Ashish Sindwani, Nilokheri, C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana 133001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Dtnps-9951-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana 132001 Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered Accountant Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Two Counts:- “(I) Confirming Addition Of Rs.24,77,940/- U/S. 69A Of The Act, On Account Of Cash Deposits During The Period Of Demonization; &

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 44Section 44ASection 69A

…ate at 8% u/s.44AD of the Act is concerned, the provisions of section 44AD of the Act are not applicable as the total turnover of the assessee is much more than Rs.1,00,00,000/. Placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case 4 of Shri Ram Jhanwar Lal, 321 ITR 400 (Rajasthan) he argued that provisions of section 44AD of the Act would not apply where the turnover exceeds the limit specified u/s.44AD of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that the average net profit of the assessee for the last three years is 1.85%. The addition can be made on the basis of net profit of the immediate three preceding assessment year…

DAYA SHANKAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1607/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1607/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Ashish Sindwani, Nilokheri, C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana 133001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Dtnps-9951-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana 132001 Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered Accountant Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Two Counts:- “(I) Confirming Addition Of Rs.24,77,940/- U/S. 69A Of The Act, On Account Of Cash Deposits During The Period Of Demonization; &

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 44Section 44ASection 69A

…ate at 8% u/s.44AD of the Act is concerned, the provisions of section 44AD of the Act are not applicable as the total turnover of the assessee is much more than Rs.1,00,00,000/. Placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case 4 of Shri Ram Jhanwar Lal, 321 ITR 400 (Rajasthan) he argued that provisions of section 44AD of the Act would not apply where the turnover exceeds the limit specified u/s.44AD of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that the average net profit of the assessee for the last three years is 1.85%. The addition can be made on the basis of net profit of the immediate three preceding assessment year…

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,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

…es and hence no other- disallowance can be made. 16) The Assessee has placed the reliance on the following cases: a) ITAT, Hyderabad decision in the case of KPC Ltd. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. b) Sri Ram Jhanwar Lal vs, Income Tax Officer [2010 – 321 ITR 400 Rajasthan High Court] c) Bharat Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002 — 258 ITR 0140 Rajasthan High Court] d) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jain Construction Co. [ 2000 – 245 ITR 0527 Rajasthan High Court ] c) Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd. v.. Commissioner of Income Tax ( 2000 —243 ITR 0083 SC ]” 10. The assessee had challenged the o…

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, 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

…es and hence no other- disallowance can be made. 16) The Assessee has placed the reliance on the following cases: a) ITAT, Hyderabad decision in the case of KPC Ltd. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. b) Sri Ram Jhanwar Lal vs, Income Tax Officer [2010 – 321 ITR 400 Rajasthan High Court] c) Bharat Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002 — 258 ITR 0140 Rajasthan High Court] d) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jain Construction Co. [ 2000 – 245 ITR 0527 Rajasthan High Court ] c) Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd. v.. Commissioner of Income Tax ( 2000 —243 ITR 0083 SC ]” 10. The assessee had challenged the o…

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, 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

…es and hence no other- disallowance can be made. 16) The Assessee has placed the reliance on the following cases: a) ITAT, Hyderabad decision in the case of KPC Ltd. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. b) Sri Ram Jhanwar Lal vs, Income Tax Officer [2010 – 321 ITR 400 Rajasthan High Court] c) Bharat Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002 — 258 ITR 0140 Rajasthan High Court] d) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jain Construction Co. [ 2000 – 245 ITR 0527 Rajasthan High Court ] c) Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd. v.. Commissioner of Income Tax ( 2000 —243 ITR 0083 SC ]” 10. The assessee had challenged the o…

SHRI NIKHIL HARKISHOR SANGHVI,,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 282/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…exceeding Rs.60 Lakhs in the relevant year. Hence, the reference thereof to the turnover in the assessee’s case, i.e. Rs.5,66,82,856/-, was misplaced. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Ram Jhanwarlal, 321 ITR 400 and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sobti Construction (India), 307 ITR 374. The Ld. AR submitted that the import and sale of mobile/memory card was made on wholesale basis and not on retail basis and, therefore, the estimation of income at 8% is unfair and high-pitched. The submission of the estimation of 8% under Section…

M/S. BHAGABATI BUILD & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. M/S. Bhagbati Bhagbati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit,-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Cuttack Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 / /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar JenaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 44A

…of Income Tax and another, reported in [2016] 388 ITR 185 (SC), wherein, it was held that the depreciation is to be allowed from estimated net profit and not from the gross turnover. Further in the case of Shri Ram Jhanwar Lai vs. ITO & Ors reported in (2009) 321 ITR 400 (RAJ),wherein, it was held that where the AO adopted the net profit in best judgment of assessment, depreciation is allowable. 8. Ld A.R. also submitted that in the case of the assessee, the A.O. has not estimated profit @ 8% merely taken clue from Sec. 44AD of the Act, as such Sec. 44AD which is presumptive estimation of profit for those assess…

M/S. P.K. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD.,,MEERUT vs. ACIT, MEERUT

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2504/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

…ITA No.- 2504/Del/2016. P.K. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 2504/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s P.K. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., ACIT, 202, New Mohanpuri, Vs. Circle-2, Meerut. Meerut. PAN No: AADCP4270D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. and Shri Pulkit Advani, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned C…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JUNAGADH vs. M/S. MADHVI CONSTRUCTION CO.,, AMRELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.R. Adhia, AR
Section 145(3)Section 255(4)Section 44A

…“7. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 8. I find that, as held by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Ram Jhanwar Lal vs ITO [(2010) 321 ITR 400 (Raj)], has inter alia observed as follows: 9. Coming to question No. 3; a bare reading of the provisions of section 44AD does show, that according to proviso to sub-section (1), nothing in sub-section (1) applies in cases where gross receipts exceeds more than Rs. 40 lakhs. It is not in dispute, that in the present case, the said amount exceeds…

SALAUDDIN vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/PAT/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.02/Pat/2011 (ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-2008) Salauddin, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Chhatradhari Bazar, Muzaffarpur Chapra, Saran स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aasfs 5008 E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Anwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Supriya Biswas, JCIT-DR
Section 44A

…ew of the binding nature of CBDT Circular, the both the authorities below ought to have allowed the depreciation from the estimated net profit. Ld. AR further relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Ram Jhanwar Lal Vs. ITO, 321 ITR 400 (Raj) and the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of M/s Shyam Bihari Vs. CIT, Miscellaneous Appeal No.808 of 2011, dated 07.05.2012. Therefore, ld. AR submitted that the assessee is entitled depreciation from the estimated net profit. 7. On the other hand, ld.DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 8. After considering the rival submi…

M/S ALECTRA CONSTS.LTD.,,SAMASTIPUR vs. DCIT, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/PAT/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Sept 2019AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Jyoti, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriya Biswas, JCIT-DR

…T Circular, No.29- D/(XIX-14 of 1965), both the authorities below ought to have allowed the depreciation from the estimated net profit. In this regard, ld. AR relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Ram Jhanwar Lal Vs. ITO, 321 ITR 400 (Raj) and decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Shyam Bihari Vs. CIT, [2012] 345 ITR 283 (Patna). 7. On the other hand, ld.DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 8. After considering the rival submissions of both the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, we find in the instant case the Assessing O…

M/S. PARIDA LABOUR SUPPLIERS,KHURDA vs. ITO, KHURDA

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

ITA 115/CTK/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.C Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.N.Das, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144ASection 145(3)

…-09 order dated 24.1.2013 has held that the Assessing Officer should allow deduction towards interest and remuneration paid to partners from the income estimated by him at 10% of the receipts, relying on the following decisions: i) Ram Jhanwarlal V/s. ITO (321 ITR 400) (Raj) ii) Bharat Construction Co. V/s. CIT 258 ITR 140 (Raj) iii) CIT V/s. Jain Constructions Co. (245 ITR 527) (Raj) Hence, respectfully following the decision of the Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Krishna Builders (supra), I direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction towards interest and remuneration paid to pa…

Shri Ram Jhanwar Lal v. ITO (321 ITR 400) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax