370 (Gujarat) 8. T. Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. v. CIT

6 SOT 18Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#4064 most cited

What is 370 (Gujarat) 8. T. Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. v. CIT authority for?

Where excess stock is found during a search, the benefit of telescoping may be allowed if additions for unrecorded sales have already been sustained and there is no evidence of other income sources.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

T. Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. v. CIT · 6 SOT 18 · search assessment · excess stock · telescoping · unrecorded sales · GP addition · section 132

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 132Section 133ASection 147Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 69daccumulated profitssection 39onus of proofpaper companyshell companycreditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourcepreponderance of probabilitydate of transferdisallowance of interest expendituresection 260

Judgments citing 370 (Gujarat) 8. T. Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. v. CIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1385/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ition to the statement, the Department was in possession of a confession by the sellers that 40% of the consideration was paid as on money. As both the purchaser and the seller declared that additional amount was involved, the addition made was sustained. (4) 6 SOT 18 (Mumbai) Man Mohan Singh Vig Vs Dy. CIT In the said case, the Hon’ble ITAT found that whatever the assessee stated u/s 132(4)and admitted as concealed income was based on documentary evidence and was confronted to him. In the case of the assessee no such evidence was found. (5) 337 ITR 238 – ACIT Vs Hukumchand Jain - In the said case, during the cou…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1384/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ition to the statement, the Department was in possession of a confession by the sellers that 40% of the consideration was paid as on money. As both the purchaser and the seller declared that additional amount was involved, the addition made was sustained. (4) 6 SOT 18 (Mumbai) Man Mohan Singh Vig Vs Dy. CIT In the said case, the Hon’ble ITAT found that whatever the assessee stated u/s 132(4)and admitted as concealed income was based on documentary evidence and was confronted to him. In the case of the assessee no such evidence was found. (5) 337 ITR 238 – ACIT Vs Hukumchand Jain - In the said case, during the cou…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1383/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ition to the statement, the Department was in possession of a confession by the sellers that 40% of the consideration was paid as on money. As both the purchaser and the seller declared that additional amount was involved, the addition made was sustained. (4) 6 SOT 18 (Mumbai) Man Mohan Singh Vig Vs Dy. CIT In the said case, the Hon’ble ITAT found that whatever the assessee stated u/s 132(4)and admitted as concealed income was based on documentary evidence and was confronted to him. In the case of the assessee no such evidence was found. (5) 337 ITR 238 – ACIT Vs Hukumchand Jain - In the said case, during the cou…

Dy. Commsioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited., Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1382/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ition to the statement, the Department was in possession of a confession by the sellers that 40% of the consideration was paid as on money. As both the purchaser and the seller declared that additional amount was involved, the addition made was sustained. (4) 6 SOT 18 (Mumbai) Man Mohan Singh Vig Vs Dy. CIT In the said case, the Hon’ble ITAT found that whatever the assessee stated u/s 132(4)and admitted as concealed income was based on documentary evidence and was confronted to him. In the case of the assessee no such evidence was found. (5) 337 ITR 238 – ACIT Vs Hukumchand Jain - In the said case, during the cou…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1136/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ition to the statement, the Department was in possession of a confession by the sellers that 40% of the consideration was paid as on money. As both the purchaser and the seller declared that additional amount was involved, the addition made was sustained. (4) 6 SOT 18 (Mumbai) Man Mohan Singh Vig Vs Dy. CIT In the said case, the Hon’ble ITAT found that whatever the assessee stated u/s 132(4)and admitted as concealed income was based on documentary evidence and was confronted to him. In the case of the assessee no such evidence was found. (5) 337 ITR 238 – ACIT Vs Hukumchand Jain - In the said case, during the cou…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1135/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ition to the statement, the Department was in possession of a confession by the sellers that 40% of the consideration was paid as on money. As both the purchaser and the seller declared that additional amount was involved, the addition made was sustained. (4) 6 SOT 18 (Mumbai) Man Mohan Singh Vig Vs Dy. CIT In the said case, the Hon’ble ITAT found that whatever the assessee stated u/s 132(4)and admitted as concealed income was based on documentary evidence and was confronted to him. In the case of the assessee no such evidence was found. (5) 337 ITR 238 – ACIT Vs Hukumchand Jain - In the said case, during the cou…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1134/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ition to the statement, the Department was in possession of a confession by the sellers that 40% of the consideration was paid as on money. As both the purchaser and the seller declared that additional amount was involved, the addition made was sustained. (4) 6 SOT 18 (Mumbai) Man Mohan Singh Vig Vs Dy. CIT In the said case, the Hon’ble ITAT found that whatever the assessee stated u/s 132(4)and admitted as concealed income was based on documentary evidence and was confronted to him. In the case of the assessee no such evidence was found. (5) 337 ITR 238 – ACIT Vs Hukumchand Jain - In the said case, during the cou…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1133/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ition to the statement, the Department was in possession of a confession by the sellers that 40% of the consideration was paid as on money. As both the purchaser and the seller declared that additional amount was involved, the addition made was sustained. (4) 6 SOT 18 (Mumbai) Man Mohan Singh Vig Vs Dy. CIT In the said case, the Hon’ble ITAT found that whatever the assessee stated u/s 132(4)and admitted as concealed income was based on documentary evidence and was confronted to him. In the case of the assessee no such evidence was found. (5) 337 ITR 238 – ACIT Vs Hukumchand Jain - In the said case, during the cou…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1132/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ition to the statement, the Department was in possession of a confession by the sellers that 40% of the consideration was paid as on money. As both the purchaser and the seller declared that additional amount was involved, the addition made was sustained. (4) 6 SOT 18 (Mumbai) Man Mohan Singh Vig Vs Dy. CIT In the said case, the Hon’ble ITAT found that whatever the assessee stated u/s 132(4)and admitted as concealed income was based on documentary evidence and was confronted to him. In the case of the assessee no such evidence was found. (5) 337 ITR 238 – ACIT Vs Hukumchand Jain - In the said case, during the cou…