TejaConstrcution v. ACIT

39 SOT 13Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#3700 most cited

What is TejaConstrcution v. ACIT authority for?

When an assessee is a sub-contractor, a net profit rate of 7% applied by the CIT(A) is justified.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,402 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Teja Construction v. ACIT · 39 SOT 13 · ITAT · sub-contractor · net profit rate · civil contract works · construction PE · contractor

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271econstruction pepenalty under section 271dcorpus fundsection 269ton money receiptsection 53joint development agreementsection 269sjdatrcsection 271e

Judgments citing TejaConstrcution v. ACIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 64/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was upheld as justified for main contractor in civil works ü G.Raja Gopala Rao vs. DCIT [163 ITD46, Vishakhapatnam 'TAT] -Rate of 8% was rightly adopted for the assessee engaged in the business of execution of civil contract works ü TejaConstrcution vs. ACIT [39 SOT 13, Hyd ITAT] - The assessee was a sub-contractor of the contractor who earned some profit, Therefore the CIT(A) rightly applied net profit rate of 7 per cent. ü DCIT vs. M.P.B. Kutumba Rao [43 Taxmann.com 205, Hyd ITAT] it was held as under: 51. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 57/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was upheld as justified for main contractor in civil works ü G.Raja Gopala Rao vs. DCIT [163 ITD46, Vishakhapatnam 'TAT] -Rate of 8% was rightly adopted for the assessee engaged in the business of execution of civil contract works ü TejaConstrcution vs. ACIT [39 SOT 13, Hyd ITAT] - The assessee was a sub-contractor of the contractor who earned some profit, Therefore the CIT(A) rightly applied net profit rate of 7 per cent. ü DCIT vs. M.P.B. Kutumba Rao [43 Taxmann.com 205, Hyd ITAT] it was held as under: 51. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 56/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was upheld as justified for main contractor in civil works ü G.Raja Gopala Rao vs. DCIT [163 ITD46, Vishakhapatnam 'TAT] -Rate of 8% was rightly adopted for the assessee engaged in the business of execution of civil contract works ü TejaConstrcution vs. ACIT [39 SOT 13, Hyd ITAT] - The assessee was a sub-contractor of the contractor who earned some profit, Therefore the CIT(A) rightly applied net profit rate of 7 per cent. ü DCIT vs. M.P.B. Kutumba Rao [43 Taxmann.com 205, Hyd ITAT] it was held as under: 51. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was upheld as justified for main contractor in civil works ü G.Raja Gopala Rao vs. DCIT [163 ITD46, Vishakhapatnam 'TAT] -Rate of 8% was rightly adopted for the assessee engaged in the business of execution of civil contract works ü TejaConstrcution vs. ACIT [39 SOT 13, Hyd ITAT] - The assessee was a sub-contractor of the contractor who earned some profit, Therefore the CIT(A) rightly applied net profit rate of 7 per cent. ü DCIT vs. M.P.B. Kutumba Rao [43 Taxmann.com 205, Hyd ITAT] it was held as under: 51. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 53/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was upheld as justified for main contractor in civil works ü G.Raja Gopala Rao vs. DCIT [163 ITD46, Vishakhapatnam 'TAT] -Rate of 8% was rightly adopted for the assessee engaged in the business of execution of civil contract works ü TejaConstrcution vs. ACIT [39 SOT 13, Hyd ITAT] - The assessee was a sub-contractor of the contractor who earned some profit, Therefore the CIT(A) rightly applied net profit rate of 7 per cent. ü DCIT vs. M.P.B. Kutumba Rao [43 Taxmann.com 205, Hyd ITAT] it was held as under: 51. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of th…

D S R Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was upheld as justified for main contractor in civil works ü G.Raja Gopala Rao vs. DCIT [163 ITD46, Vishakhapatnam 'TAT] -Rate of 8% was rightly adopted for the assessee engaged in the business of execution of civil contract works ü TejaConstrcution vs. ACIT [39 SOT 13, Hyd ITAT] - The assessee was a sub-contractor of the contractor who earned some profit, Therefore the CIT(A) rightly applied net profit rate of 7 per cent. ü DCIT vs. M.P.B. Kutumba Rao [43 Taxmann.com 205, Hyd ITAT] it was held as under: 51. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of th…

DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 50/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was upheld as justified for main contractor in civil works ü G.Raja Gopala Rao vs. DCIT [163 ITD46, Vishakhapatnam 'TAT] -Rate of 8% was rightly adopted for the assessee engaged in the business of execution of civil contract works ü TejaConstrcution vs. ACIT [39 SOT 13, Hyd ITAT] - The assessee was a sub-contractor of the contractor who earned some profit, Therefore the CIT(A) rightly applied net profit rate of 7 per cent. ü DCIT vs. M.P.B. Kutumba Rao [43 Taxmann.com 205, Hyd ITAT] it was held as under: 51. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of th…

D S R Infrastructureprivate Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was upheld as justified for main contractor in civil works ü G.Raja Gopala Rao vs. DCIT [163 ITD46, Vishakhapatnam 'TAT] -Rate of 8% was rightly adopted for the assessee engaged in the business of execution of civil contract works ü TejaConstrcution vs. ACIT [39 SOT 13, Hyd ITAT] - The assessee was a sub-contractor of the contractor who earned some profit, Therefore the CIT(A) rightly applied net profit rate of 7 per cent. ü DCIT vs. M.P.B. Kutumba Rao [43 Taxmann.com 205, Hyd ITAT] it was held as under: 51. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of th…

Optart Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, Penalty appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 699/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 250Section 40A(3)

…350/MUM/2015 in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co., wherein additions of 12.5% alleged bogus purchases was confirmed after relying the following judgment: (i) Indwell Construction v. CIT [232 ITR 776 (AP)] (ii) Teja Construction v. ACIT [39 SOT 13 (Hyd)] (iii) ITO v. Sahadev Pradhan [33 taxmann.com 563] (iv) CIT v. Banwarilal Banshidhar [229 ITR 229] ITA No. 699 & 2461/Ahd/2018 4 . A.Y. 2013-14 (v) CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain [159 taxmann.com 392] (vi) ITO v. Nardev Kumar Gupta [32 taxmann.com 388] 7. Since above said order by the ITAT Mumbai have been passed after considering this different…

Tanvi Foods (India) Limited (Previously Known As Tanvi Foods(India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 80l

…, it is trite law that no further additions can be made from the same books of account. In support of the contentions the AR relied upon the following case laws:- i. Indwell Constructions Vs CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP High Court). ii. M/s. Teja Constructions Vs ACIT 39 SOT 13 (ITAT, Hyderabad). iii. Malpani House of Stones Vs CIT, Jaipur ITA No.35/2003, dt. 04.10.2016 (Rajasthan High Court). 12 I.T.A. Nos. 650 to 652/Hyd/2018 Tanvi Foods (India) Ltd., Hyd. (iii) The AO accepted the total turnover as receipts from business and therefore, the issue of considering the other income separately neither germinated from groun…

Tanvi Foods (India) Limited (Previously Known As Tanvi Foods(India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 651/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 80l

…, it is trite law that no further additions can be made from the same books of account. In support of the contentions the AR relied upon the following case laws:- i. Indwell Constructions Vs CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP High Court). ii. M/s. Teja Constructions Vs ACIT 39 SOT 13 (ITAT, Hyderabad). iii. Malpani House of Stones Vs CIT, Jaipur ITA No.35/2003, dt. 04.10.2016 (Rajasthan High Court). 12 I.T.A. Nos. 650 to 652/Hyd/2018 Tanvi Foods (India) Ltd., Hyd. (iii) The AO accepted the total turnover as receipts from business and therefore, the issue of considering the other income separately neither germinated from groun…

Tanvi Foods (India) Limited (Previously Known As Tanvi Foods(India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 650/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 80l

…, it is trite law that no further additions can be made from the same books of account. In support of the contentions the AR relied upon the following case laws:- i. Indwell Constructions Vs CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP High Court). ii. M/s. Teja Constructions Vs ACIT 39 SOT 13 (ITAT, Hyderabad). iii. Malpani House of Stones Vs CIT, Jaipur ITA No.35/2003, dt. 04.10.2016 (Rajasthan High Court). 12 I.T.A. Nos. 650 to 652/Hyd/2018 Tanvi Foods (India) Ltd., Hyd. (iii) The AO accepted the total turnover as receipts from business and therefore, the issue of considering the other income separately neither germinated from groun…

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 317/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 198Section 40

…made by the assessee in its books, has placed reliance on the Delhi Tribunal decision in the case of ‘ITO vs. Aahar Consumer Products Pvt. Limited’, 10 Taxmann.com 181 (Delhi) and that of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of ‘M/s Teja Construction vs. ACIT’, 39 SOT 13 (Hyd). The Department has not been able to controvert these decisions of the Tribunal, which are directly on the issue. In ‘Aahar Consumer Products Pvt. Limited’ (supra), it has been held that it is only when the claim of the assessee for deduction is under the provisions of sections 30 to 38, that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 314/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 198Section 40

…made by the assessee in its books, has placed reliance on the Delhi Tribunal decision in the case of ‘ITO vs. Aahar Consumer Products Pvt. Limited’, 10 Taxmann.com 181 (Delhi) and that of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of ‘M/s Teja Construction vs. ACIT’, 39 SOT 13 (Hyd). The Department has not been able to controvert these decisions of the Tribunal, which are directly on the issue. In ‘Aahar Consumer Products Pvt. Limited’ (supra), it has been held that it is only when the claim of the assessee for deduction is under the provisions of sections 30 to 38, that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can…

Hydroair Tectonics (Pcd) Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 3949/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

…(a)(ia) cannot be invoked to make further addition. This is because the estimation of income takes care of the irregularities committed by the assessee. In this regard he relied upon the decision of Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in case of Teja Construction vs ACIT 39 SOT 13 (Hyd). 34. Having considered arguments of both sides, we find merit in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that when books of account are rejected for estimation of profit from the business, then the same books of account could not be relied upon to make addition towards disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source unde…

Rajkumari Singh, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

ITA 946/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

…(a)(ia) cannot be invoked to make further addition. This is because the estimation of income takes care of the irregularities committed by the assessee. In this regard he relied upon the decision of Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in case of Teja Construction vs ACIT 39 SOT 13 (Hyd). 34. Having considered arguments of both sides, we find merit in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that when books of account are rejected for estimation of profit from the business, then the same books of account could not be relied upon to make addition towards disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source unde…

M/S. Hisafe Techno Products Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer- Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3374/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 194HSection 40

…ferred to in section 194H of the Act on which tax was deductible. In view of the above, the assessee's submission on this ground is rejected. With a due respect to the decision quoted by the assessee in the case Teja Construction Vs. C.I.T. [2010] reported in 39 SOT 13 (Hyd.) (URO), it is to be submitted that the same is not yet reached its finality. As stated above, the assessee has paid/credited an amount of Rs. 60,000/- each in the accounts of Smt. Rumaben R. Parikh and Priyanka Parikh without deducting the tax as required u/s. 194H of the Act and as such the same is squarely covered u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Shankheshwar Kreators, Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5351/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 69C

…i) of the Act on the basis of the very same Books of Accounts which stood rejected. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, to support his contention relied on the following decisions: - (i) Indwell Construction v. CIT [232 ITR 776 (AP)] (ii) Teja Construction v. ACIT [39 SOT 13 (Hyd)] (iii) ITO v. Sahadev Pradhan [33 taxmann.com 563] ITA.No.5350 & 5351/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co M/s. Shankheshwar Kreators (iv) CIT v. Banwarilal Banshidhar [229 ITR 229] (v) CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain [159 taxmann.com 392] (vi) ITO v. Nardev Kumar Gupta [32 taxmann.com 388] 9. We accept the above contention of t…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co, Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5350/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 69C

…i) of the Act on the basis of the very same Books of Accounts which stood rejected. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, to support his contention relied on the following decisions: - (i) Indwell Construction v. CIT [232 ITR 776 (AP)] (ii) Teja Construction v. ACIT [39 SOT 13 (Hyd)] (iii) ITO v. Sahadev Pradhan [33 taxmann.com 563] ITA.No.5350 & 5351/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co M/s. Shankheshwar Kreators (iv) CIT v. Banwarilal Banshidhar [229 ITR 229] (v) CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain [159 taxmann.com 392] (vi) ITO v. Nardev Kumar Gupta [32 taxmann.com 388] 9. We accept the above contention of t…

Sujata Chinai, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8635/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 40

…, assessee submitted that since expenditure incurred have been paid within the same financial year, no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia). In this regard, relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Teja Constructions vs CIT (2010) 39 SOT 13 (Hyd). As regards disallowance of studio expenses treating the same as capital expenditure, the assessee has submitted that it has furnished copies of bills of charges to whom payment of more than Rs.50,000 was made. Therefore, the AO was incorrect in disallowing expenditure. Similarly, insofar as disallowance of 20% of adhoc expenses, the AO ha…