← All Phrases

“Section 145(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 145Section 145(3)2,270 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 145(3) is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 145(3)

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 363 · 1971 · Supreme Court
654
citing judgments

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

CIT v. President Industries
258 ITR 654 · 2002 · High Court
471
citing judgments

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court
391
citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

Kachwala Gems v. JCIT
288 ITR 10 · 2007 · Supreme Court
332
citing judgments

In a best judgment assessment, some guesswork is inherent, but the estimate must be fair and not arbitrary. Books of account can be rejected under Section 145(3) if the assessee fails to substantiate entries or prove the genuineness of transactions, leading to estimation of income.

Judgments citing Section 145(3)

Industrial Security and Management Services, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Gb Nagar, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2716/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaindustrial Security & Vs. Acit, Management Services, Circle-5(1)(1), 655, Sector-37, Gb Gb Nagar, Noida Nagar, Noida, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfi4657R

For Appellant: Mr. Supriya Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

Puneet Pandey, New Delhi vs. CIT, Noida

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2893/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmapuneet Pandey, Vs. Cit, Raj Kumar & Noida Associate, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Extn. Part-2, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Amzpp0202G

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Ahmed, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

Unnikrishnan. K, Kunnampally vs. The ITO Ward 2, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms, and his stay petition dismissed

ITA 955/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(1)

tantamounts to rejection of the reply and the books of account, though in specific, the Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Regarding the estimation of income by the Assessing officer, no basis of whatsoever kind has been given by the Assessing officer

M/S Singh Construction Co., Patiala vs. ACIT, Circle, Patial

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1120/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipen Sethi, Advocate and Shri Shashi Bhushan Galav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 68

thereafter selected for scrutiny and thereafter order under section 143(3) was passed on 08/12/2011 wherein the AO invoked the provision of Section 145(3) r.w.s 144, rejected the books of account and estimated the net profit rate of 8% of gross receipt which was worked

Income Tax Officer-42(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Ravindra G Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2565/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer - Vs. Ravindra G. Chitalia, 42(1)(4), A/604, Saileela, Above Room No. 718, Kautilya Vijaya Bank, Anand Bhavan, Bkc, Nagar, Dahisar (East) Mumbai – 400051 Maharashtra – 400068 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepc4939Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : S. Arunkumar Respondent By : Debiz Bhusal Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This E-Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) For A.Y. 2010-191. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & In Law By Giving Partial Relief To The Assessee By Reducing The Addition / Disallowance To 5% Of The Impugned Non-Genuine / Bogus Purchases As Against The Addition / Disallowance @12.5% Made By The Assessing Officer By Relying On. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & In Law By Reducing The Disallowance @ 5% Of The Impugned Bogus Purchases By Relying On The Judgment Dated 06 02 2019 Of The Jurisdictional Itat In The Case Of The This Assessee For The A.Y 2009- 10 Which Was Not Accepted By The Revenue & Further Appeal Was Filed It Is Submitted In This Regard That In The Said Itat Judgment On Identical Facts It Was Held By Hon'Ble Tribunal That Disallowance @12.5% Was At Higher Rale Going By The Nature Of Business Of The Assessee (Trading In Various Products Of Iron & Steel) & Also For The Reason That The Assessee Has Also Paid Vat Element On The Impugned Bogus Purchases Without

For Appellant: S. ArunkumarFor Respondent: Debiz Bhusal
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

P a g e | 1 ITO-42(1)(4) Vs. Ravindra G. Chitalia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC

Smt. Shubdha Bhaskar Mane, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1186/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri P C PatilFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No

Vineet Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee being

ITA 1003/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Assessing officer on account of bogus purchases by ignoring the fact that the books of account of the assessee has been rejected under section 145(3) of the Act and income has been estimated @8% of the total turnover. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... note that the A.Ys. 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 Vineet Agarwal ld. Assessing Officer has rejected the books of account of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and thereafter in order to assess the income, ld. Assessing Officer applied the rate of 8% to the total turnover

Vineet Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee being

ITA 1002/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Assessing officer on account of bogus purchases by ignoring the fact that the books of account of the assessee has been rejected under section 145(3) of the Act and income has been estimated @8% of the total turnover. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... note that the A.Ys. 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 Vineet Agarwal ld. Assessing Officer has rejected the books of account of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and thereafter in order to assess the income, ld. Assessing Officer applied the rate of 8% to the total turnover

M/S. Flexsin Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3003/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shyam M. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

assessee cannot be relied upon' in the light of above findings and that it is a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 145(3) so as to reject the books of accounts. Even during the appellate proceeding the appellant has not come out with any hew facts

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-8(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

Assessing Officer has not 13 I.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik rejected the book results and provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act has not been invoked. Without rejecting the book results the ld. Assessing Officer cannot estimate the profits of the assessee’s business

Sandeep Kherada, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)
Section 131Section 144

parties as unverifiable and bogus without making any enquiry during the course of assessment proceedings. Ld. AO further without invoking the provisions of section 145(3), made trading additions of Rs.3,09,105/-. To simplify the matter, it is submitted that basically there were three types of additions made ... also made addition of Rs. 3,09,105/- as trading addition without rejecting the books and thereby without following the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. In support of the grounds for all three addition he has relied upon the detailed finding given in the written submission filed

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

Sh. Kapil Gupta, Patiala vs. The Dy.C.I.T., C.C., Patiala

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

ITA 557/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 69

unjustified. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in upholding the rejection of books applying the provisions of Section 145(3) which is arbitrary and unjustified. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in upholding the net profit at Rs.36

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

44AF of the I.T. Act. As the assessee has not maintained correct record the ld. AO estimated the profit invoking the provision of section 145(3) of the Act and income of the assessee was estimated at Rs. 3,00,000/- since the assessee has already declared the income ... worth-while to bring in your notice that :- the A.o. has rejected Books of Accounts of the Assessee by invoking provision of section 145(3) and made addition of Rs. 122730 by rejected the Assessee adopted presumptive taxation u/s 44AF- Retail Trade. But the Appellate order of CIT(A) (faceless

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

44AF of the I.T. Act. As the assessee has not maintained correct record the ld. AO estimated the profit invoking the provision of section 145(3) of the Act and income of the assessee was estimated at Rs. 3,00,000/- since the assessee has already declared the income ... worth-while to bring in your notice that :- the A.o. has rejected Books of Accounts of the Assessee by invoking provision of section 145(3) and made addition of Rs. 122730 by rejected the Assessee adopted presumptive taxation u/s 44AF- Retail Trade. But the Appellate order of CIT(A) (faceless

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Pks Infra Engineers Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1388/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Astha Chandradcit, Vs. Pks Infra Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle, J-288, Saket, New Delhi Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecp6740M Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Jain, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Bharat Bhushan Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7459/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7459/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 56Section 68

I.T.A.No.7459/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE

DCIT Central Circle, Karnal vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt Ltd, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4808/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, C/O Nk Jain Adv. Sec-12, Karnal, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani Haryana Pin 132001 Haryana Pin 127021 Pan Aadcr4203L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee". The choice of method of accounting is with the assessee and unless conditions prescribed in section 145(3) are satisfied, profits have to be computed in accordance with the method of accounting followed by the assessee ... specified by the Central Government under section 145(2) of the IT Act. Hence, the AO could not have rejected the accounts under section 145(3) on the around that the assessee has not followed the prescribed method accounting. As per section 145(1), income is to be computed

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

those purchase bills. The Assessing Officer accordingly rejected the books result of the assessee invoking section books result of the assessee invoking section 145(3) 145(3) of the Act and made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/- in made addition for the entire bogus purchases