PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey should be treated as business income, not unexplained investment under Section 69, and thus Section 115BBE is not applicable. The PCIT's order to treat it as unexplained investment was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee company declared income from manufacturing and export of jewelry. The PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, holding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Key issues involved disallowance of ESI/PF, treating excess stock as unexplained investment, and disallowance of interest and Section 10AA deduction.
What were the issues?
Whether excess stock detected during survey should be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 or as business income, and consequently, whether Section 115BBE is applicable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 144,Section 10AA,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT2,943 citing243 ITR 83 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Max India Ltd.1,162 citing295 ITR 282 · 2007 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by assessee has arisen out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur dated 30/03/2024 [here in after Id. PCIT ] for assessment year 2018-19 which in turn arose from the order dated 12.04.2021 passed under section 144of the Income Tax Act, [ for short Act ] by DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur [ for short A
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.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- Nallathambi Thangaraj vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026