DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 3274/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 November 2023AY 2017-1864 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

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?

Section 68,Section 145(3),Section 153A,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(11)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI BR BASKARANSHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 08.09.2023Pronounced: 28.11.2023

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.

2.

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →