1. Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs.Asst. CIT (Raj.) (2009)316 ITR 120 2. Haridas Parikh v. ITO

Pradeep Kumar Himmatramka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jhunjhunu

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

Bench: Ao & No Defect Whatsoever Was Pointed Out In The Same, Thus The Observation Of The Ao & Ld. Cit(A) That The Assessee Has Not Maintained Stock Records Deserves To Be Excluded & Ignored

…46,345 5,93,203 G.P. Rate 1.59% 3.52% 2.56% The ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws:- 1. Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs.Asst. CIT (Raj.) (2009)316 ITR 120 2. Haridas Parikh V ITO [2009] 29 SOT 13 (JODH.)(URO) 3. Ashok Kumar & Co. v. ITO [2004] 2 SOT 518 (Asr.) (SMC) 4. CM. Francis & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [77 ITR 449] (Ker) 5. Asstt. CIT v. L.M.P. Tractors (P.) Ltd. [2005] 148 Taxman 52 (Mag.) (Ahemdabad) Conclusively, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the lower authorities have wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. He further submitted that the results declared by the…

Laxmi Narayan Himmatramka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jhunjhunu

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

…ayan Himmatramka vs. ITO, Ward- 2 , Jhunjhunu . The ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws:- 1. Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs.Asst. CIT (Raj.), 316 ITR 120 2. Haridas Parikh V ITO [2009] 29 SOT 13 (JODH.)(URO) 3. Ashok Kumar & Co. v. ITO [2004] 2 SOT 518 (Asr.) (SMC) 4. CM. Francis & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [77 ITR 449] (Kerala) 5. Asstt. CIT v. L.M.P. Tractors (P.) Ltd. [2005] 148 Taxman 52 (Mag.) (Ahmedabad ) 6. ACIT vs. Kanhaiyalal Choudhary [ITAT Jaipur Bench]: The accepted past history is the best guide and when the assessee has declared better results, the declared results to be accepted and no…

Amit Bhandari, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

…rting (ii) evidence in respect of a particular item of expenditure cannot by itself empower an Assessing Officer to invoke provision of Section 145(3) in rejecting the books of account. Amritsar Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal in Ashok Kumar & Co. v. ITO [2004] 2 SOT 518 (Asr.) (SMC) held that rejection of books cannot be restored to simply on the basis of absence of some vouchers and failure to produce the same by the assessee. (iii) Further, the Kerala High Court in the case of CM. Francis & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT held that where purchase vouchers for agricultural produce purchased from agriculturists could not be…