Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.36 seconds)Section 29 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Indwell Constructions vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 March, 1998
38. Further, from a computation standpoint as well, as held by the
Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Indwell Constructions vs
CIT 232 ITR 776 (AP), where the books of accounts are rejected, all the
deductions which are referred to under section 29 are deemed to have
been taken into account while making such an estimate of income and
where such an estimate is made, it is in substitution of the income that
is to be computed under section 29 and it was held as under:
Section 40 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 288 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S M. A. Builders Pvt. Ltd, , Lucknow vs Department Of Income Tax
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow in the case of M/s M.A
Builders Pvt. Ltd., vs. Department of Income Tax in ITA No.
564/LKW/2011 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Date of pronouncement:
Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... on 8 February, 1963
In our view, the
said action of the Additional CIT is not vitiated merely on the ground
that the books of accounts have been rejected and net profit has been
estimated by the AO provided it can be proved that these are
independent transactions not connected with the transactions in respect
of which the net profit has been estimated by the AO. In support,
useful reference can be drawn to the legal proposition laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of Kale Khan Mohammad
Hanif vs CIT reported in 50 ITR 1 and which has been followed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in case of CIT vs
Devi Prasad Vishwanath reported in 72 ITR 194 wherein it was
held as under: