ACIT v. Ghai Lime Stone Co.

144 ITR 140High Court1983#7248 most cited

What is ACIT v. Ghai Lime Stone Co. authority for?

Trade advances or cash received against which goods are subsequently supplied are not considered cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Ghai Lime Stone Co. · Section 68 · trade advances · cash credit · unexplained cash credit · goods supplied · Section 143(3) · Section 145(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorrejection of books of accountaddition u/s 68addition under section 68section 145(3)section 145section 44absection 44double taxationunexplained moneyunexplained cash creditsection 69c

Judgments citing ACIT v. Ghai Lime Stone Co.

ACIT Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Grenic Tiles Pvt Ltd, Morbi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas

ITA 682/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 624/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…the above, there is no justification for the revenue authorities to treat these cash advances as unexplained cash credit u/s 68". Again, the reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP), wherein it was held that trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied subsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68 of the Act. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212, the relevant observation of the Mu…

Grenic Tiles Private Limited, Wankaner-Morbi vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1(1) RKT, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas

ITA 624/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 624/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…the above, there is no justification for the revenue authorities to treat these cash advances as unexplained cash credit u/s 68". Again, the reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP), wherein it was held that trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied subsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68 of the Act. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212, the relevant observation of the Mu…

Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. No.546/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 Rakesh Jain Vs Dcit - 26(1) Shop No. 29, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 126-128, Sheikh Menon Bandra, Mumbai St., Trimurti Estate, Kalbadevi, Mumbai Pan – Aaιρj7359P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By | Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By || Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt.28.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

…the above, there is no justification for the revenue authorities to treat these cash advances as unexplained cash credit u/s 68”. e. Reliance can also be placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP). It is evident from these judicial rulings that trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied subsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68. f. Shree Sanad Textiles Industries Ltd. V. DCIT (Ahmedabad ITAT) ITA No. 1166/Ahd/2014 in paras 9.6/9.7 it was held that "We also note that the provisions of section 6…

Shree Durga Jewellers, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur vs. AO Circle 4 Jaipur, Cr Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to them". (Copy of judgment is enclosed page no 110 -115 pb) Reliance can also be placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Ghai Lime Stone Co. [1983] 144 ITR 140. It is evident from these judicial rulings that trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied subsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68. Identification of buyers So far as identification of buyers are concerned, assessee has furnished full detail of names and addresses along with their PIN code numbers. (Co…

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…the above, there is no justification for the revenue authorities to treat these cash advances as unexplained cash credit u/s 68", Reliance can also be placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High g. Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP).It is evident from these judicial rulings that trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied subsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68. h. Reliance can further be placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212, the relevant obse…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…the above, there is no justification for the revenue authorities to treat these cash advances as unexplained cash credit u/s 68", Reliance can also be placed on the decision of Hon'ble M.P. High g. Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP).It is evident from these judicial rulings that trade advances or cash received against which goods is supplied subsequently is not a cash credit as contemplated by section 68. h. Reliance can further be placed on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs. Surana Traders, (2005)93 TTJ 875: (2005)92 ITD 212, the relevant obse…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Smt. Harshila Chordia vs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349) (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 173-178) (2) ITAT, Nagpur Bench in the case of Mis Heera Steel Limited vs ITO (2005) 4 IT J 437) (3) Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP)) (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 179-180) Para Further, from We have submitted explanation in detail in Para 4.3.7 above 4.6 (1 perusal of the last stock of pure para) gold it is found page that Pure Gold 17 opening stock for the month of November, 2016 was 14131 grams and total sale of pure gold during the month was 94381 grams. Total sale du…

Mrs. Stella Suresh Srivastava, Mysuru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234Section 69

…profits and their actual availability for application by the assessee. That view was affirmed by the Madras High Court in S.Kuppuswamy Mudaliar vs. CIT (51 ITR 757). 7.3 The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gha Lime Stone & Co. (144 ITR 140) held that if there is sufficient link between the so-called cash credits and intangible additions then telescoping can be allowed. 7.4 Considering the above factual position and the legal aspect of the issue, we feel that the matter is required to be re-considered by the AO. The AO will consider the explanation of the assessee in respect of with…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…• CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) • CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1969) 72 ITR 807 (SC) • Smt. HarshilaChordiavs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) • M/s Heera Steel Limited vs. ITO (2005) 4 ITJ 437 (Nag) • CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP) • R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT reported at [1970] 75 ITR 33 (BOM.) • M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Kerala) • M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Limited vs ITO in ITA No. 4873/Del/1998 order dated 05.10.2018 (Del Bench) • ITO vs. M/s Sunny Jewellery House in ITA No. 196/Chd/2014 order dated 06.05.2016 (ITAT Chd) • ACIT…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…• CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) • CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1969) 72 ITR 807 (SC) • Smt. HarshilaChordiavs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) • M/s Heera Steel Limited vs. ITO (2005) 4 ITJ 437 (Nag) • CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP) • R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT reported at [1970] 75 ITR 33 (BOM.) • M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Kerala) • M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Limited vs ITO in ITA No. 4873/Del/1998 order dated 05.10.2018 (Del Bench) • ITO vs. M/s Sunny Jewellery House in ITA No. 196/Chd/2014 order dated 06.05.2016 (ITAT Chd) • ACIT…

M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir -9(2), Mumbai

ITA 309/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s explanation. Further section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation. The M.P. high court in case of ACIT V Ghai Lime Stone Co. 144 ITR 140 has held that on a proper construction, section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation and if either of them is accepted, the cash credit can not be charged as the income of the appellant similar view was also taken by Gauhati High Court in case of Dhansirarn Agarwalla V CIT 217 ITR 4. Considering the alternative ple…

DCIT - 9(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1971/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s explanation. Further section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation. The M.P. high court in case of ACIT V Ghai Lime Stone Co. 144 ITR 140 has held that on a proper construction, section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation and if either of them is accepted, the cash credit can not be charged as the income of the appellant similar view was also taken by Gauhati High Court in case of Dhansirarn Agarwalla V CIT 217 ITR 4. Considering the alternative ple…

ACIT - 9(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1853/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s explanation. Further section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation. The M.P. high court in case of ACIT V Ghai Lime Stone Co. 144 ITR 140 has held that on a proper construction, section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation and if either of them is accepted, the cash credit can not be charged as the income of the appellant similar view was also taken by Gauhati High Court in case of Dhansirarn Agarwalla V CIT 217 ITR 4. Considering the alternative ple…

M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir -9(2), Mumbai

ITA 1717/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s explanation. Further section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation. The M.P. high court in case of ACIT V Ghai Lime Stone Co. 144 ITR 140 has held that on a proper construction, section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation and if either of them is accepted, the cash credit can not be charged as the income of the appellant similar view was also taken by Gauhati High Court in case of Dhansirarn Agarwalla V CIT 217 ITR 4. Considering the alternative ple…

DCIT - 9(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kingpin Investment & Finance P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1288/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.309,1717 &1718/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-2002,2002-03 & 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ssible explanation which the assessee may put forth, he can not also arbitrarily reject the assessee’s explanation. Further section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation. The M.P. high court in case of ACIT V Ghai Lime Stone Co. 144 ITR 140 has held that on a proper construction, section 68 does not debar the assessee from offering alternative explanation and if either of them is accepted, the cash credit can not be charged as the income of the appellant similar view was also taken by Gauhati High Court in case of Dhansirarn Agarwalla V CIT 217 ITR 4. Considering the alternative ple…