MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions made by the AO, finding that the transactions were supported by documentary evidence and reflected in the audited books of accounts. The Tribunal also held that estimating profit on sales already offered to tax would amount to double taxation.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in gold and jewellery trading, had cash deposits and RTGS transfers during the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained cash credit and expenditure, which were partly reduced by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the AO for unexplained cash credit and expenditure were justified, and whether estimating profit on sales already accounted for amounts to double taxation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(11)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers101 citing189 ITD 608 · 2021 · ITAT
- 85 (Mumbai), CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal90 citing134 Taxmann.com 256 · 2022 · HC
- Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT69 citing97 ITR 258 · 1974 · HC
- CIT v. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd.44 citing84 Taxmann 146 · 1996 · HC
- Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO34 citing138 Taxmann.com 141 · 2022 · ITAT
- M/s RS Diamond India v. ACIT17 citing145 Taxmann.com 545 · 2022 · ITAT
- CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd.16 citing212 ITR 417 · 1995 · HC
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jacksons House13 citing198 Taxmann 385 · 2011 · HC
- PCIT v. Garden Silk Mills. Limited5 citing388 ITR 237 · HC
- (a) CIT v. Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd.4 citing216 Taxmann 225 · 2013 · HC
- Punjab & Haryana in CIT Faridabad v. Smt. Salochana Bhatia3 citing208 Taxmann 224 · 2012 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI BR BASKARANSHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The cross appeal is filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 47, Mumbai passed u/sec250 of the Act.
We shall take up revenue appeal-ITA.No. 327
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai vs Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., MumbaiMumbai29 Nov 2023Allowed
Also relies on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jacksons House and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions made by the AO, finding that the transactions were supported by documentary evidence and reflected in the audited books of accounts. The Tribunal also hel...
- DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, MumbaiMumbai29 May 2023Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were substantiated by the assessee's cash sales, which were reflected in the audited books of accounts and offered for taxation. The addition under Section 68 would lead to double...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs La Solitaire Jewels Private Limited, DelhiDelhi30 Oct 2025Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were duly explained by the sale proceeds and directed the AO to delete the addition.
- Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited… vs ACIT, SitapurLucknow22 Sept 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 9,24,71,130/- on account of cash sales made on 08.11.2016 was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not rejected the assessee's books of account, an...
- Rakesh Malhotra, Delhi vs ITO, Ward-36(4), Civic Centre, Minto Road…Delhi17 May 2024Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the addition made solely on the ground of no cash sales in preceding and subsequent years was not justified, especially when the assessee provided cash book, sales, and purchase details, and the AO...
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
