How many judgments cite ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers?

101 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers (128 Taxmann.com 291), spanning 2022 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 145(3), Section 69A, Section 142(1).

ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers

128 Taxmann.com 291Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#1097 most cited

What is ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers authority for?

An abnormal increase in declared cash sales and deposits during demonetization does not warrant an addition under Section 68, as Section 68 applies to unexplained cash credits, not disclosed sales receipts supported by stock and purchases.

101

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers · Section 68 · cash sales demonetization · unexplained cash credit · sales receipts · rejection of books of account · stock matching · Section 115BBE · addition under section 68

Also reported as

189 ITD 608

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 145(3)Section 69A Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 section 131(1)rejection of books of account section 145(3)section 44ab preponderance of probability section 115bb section 145 section 115b section 115bbe double taxation

Judgments citing ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers

Karnataka Ginger Trading Company, Kushalnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Medikeri

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2235/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 69A

…missioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 reported in [2025] 175 taxmann.com 159 (Delhi - Trib.) dated 13.05.2025, wherein the Tribunal, while relying upon the decision of the ITAT Visakhapatnam in the case of ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers [2021] 128 taxmann.com 29 / 189 ITD 608 held that the provisions of section 69A can be invoked only when the money found with the assessee is not recorded in the books of accounts and the assessee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation regarding its source. The relevant portion is reproduced below for sake of reference: “17. Further reliance in this regard is being placed on the Jud…

M/S Houston Tours and Travels, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5906/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Houston Tours & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Travels Circle 2(2) 3Rd Floor Manohardas Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Road, Boribuilder, C.S.T., Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400001 Pan/Gir No: Aajfh8097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jayant Bhatt Respondent By Shri V. Vinodkumar, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Houston Tours and vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Travels Circle 2(2) 3rd Floor Manohardas Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Road, Boribuilder, C.S.T., Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400001 PAN/GIR No: AAJFH8097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Jayant Bhatt Respondent by Shri V. Vinodkumar, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.03.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee eman…

Shalin Rajendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1548/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No: 1548/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shalin Rajendrakumar Shah The ITO, U-G, 1-2, Atlanta Tower, Ward-5(3)(2), Nr. Gulbai Tekra, Vs Ahmedabad Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380015 Gujarat, India PAN: AMKPS2819M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Biren Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented:Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 24-02-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Pv Media Vision Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5337/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent P.V. Media Vision Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Circle-7(3)(2), Building No. A-1, Room No. 128A, Unit No. 19, 1st Floor, 5036/Mum/2025 2017-18 Shah N Nahar, Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Maharshi Karve Road, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400013 [PAN: AAECP6508R] P.V. Media Vision Pvt. Ltd., ACIT-8(2)(1), Building No. A-1, Room No. 621A, Unit No. 19, 5337/Mum/2025 2017-18 Aayakar Bhavan, Shah N Nahar, M…

P V Media Vision Pvt. Ltd, Lower Parel Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5036/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

Virendra Kumar Mandot, Sadar Bazar Sailana Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO-1, Ratlam

ITA 382/IND/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.382/Ind/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 Virendra Kumar Mandot, 01, Sadar Bazar Sailana, Ratlam (Assessee/Appellant) PAN: ACMPM9167A Assessee by Shri Gagan Tiwari, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement ITO-1 Ratlam बनाम / Vs. (Revenue/Respond ent) 05.01.2026 22.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 07.04.2025 passed by learned Commis…

Zia Rathi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-44(3), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1881/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmrs. Zia Rathi, Income Tax Officer, 274, Dda Flats, Sector-1A, Ward-44(3), Dwarka Nasirpur, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Bsvpr9218M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.02.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 15/11146/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Sole Proprietor Of M/S Veezee Traders Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Pvc Coated Imported Fabric. The Zia Rathi Vs. Ito

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

…as reflected in trading account and it was held that if the opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock have not been doubted and cash is received against such sales, then the addition cannot be said to be justified."  CIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers [2021] 96 ITR 24 (Vishakhapatnam-ITAT) "Where AO made addition under section 68 on account of huge cash amount deposited by assessee-jeweller in its bank account post demonetization, since assessee had explained source of said cash deposits as sales of jewellery, produced sale bills and admitted same as revenue receipt as well as offered it to tax and assessee also…

Kishor Vitthal Kolhe, Jalgaon vs. DCIT-Circle-1, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1876/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kawadia (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Kishor Vitthal Kolhe DCIT, Circle – 1, Jalgaon 31, Durgeshwari, Pratap Nagar, Vs. Ring Road, Jalgaon – 425001 PAN: ABFPK9778H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vinay Kawadia (through virtual) Department by : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Date of hearing : 18-12-2025 Date of pronouncement : 14-01-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.06.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi…

Gurdas Mal Arora, Kanpur vs. The A O Circle-1(2)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Gurdas Mal Arora v. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. PAN:AFEPM4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal…

Badri Prasad Vishwa Nath Jewels, Lucknow vs. ACIT-2, Lucknow

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

ITA 382/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 115BSection 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40A(3)Section 68

…I.T.A. No.382/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.382/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2017-18 Badri Prasad Vishwa Nath Vs. A.C.I.T.-II, Jewels, M-16 (Basement), Lucknow. Gole Market, Mahanagar, Lucknow-226006 PAN:AAHFB5813D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Respondent by Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (D.R.) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.382/Lkw/2023 has been filed by the assessee…

Gold Spice Impex, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2244/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 68

…as reflected in trading account and it was held that if the opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock have not been doubted and cash is received against such sales, then the addition cannot be said to be justified.”  CIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers [2021] 96 ITR 24 ( Vishakhapatnam-ITAT) “ Where AO made addition under section 68 on account of huge cash amount deposited by assessee-jeweller in its bank account post demonetization, since assessee had explained source of said cash deposits as sales of jewellery, produced sale bills and admitted same as revenue receipt as well as offered it to tax and assessee al…

Income Tax Officer Ward 29(1), New Delhi vs. Sahil Jain, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80J

…chers for the period from 01/04/2016 to 08/11/2016, there is no ground for making the addition. The appellant has also relied on various case laws which are squarely applicable in the case of the assessee. Further, in the case of ACIT vs. Hirapanna Jewellers (189 ITD 608) Vishakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal held as under: “Purchases, sales and the Stock are interlinked and inseparable. Every purchase increases the stock and every sale decreases the stock. To disbelieve the sales either the assessee should not have the sufficient stocks in their possession or there must be defects in the stock registers/stocks. O…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. La Solitaire Jewels Private Limited, Delhi

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradeputy Commissioner Of Vs La Solitaire Jewels Income Tax, Private Limited Room No. 316A, C. R. 2706, Bank Street Road, Building, I. P. Estate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- New Delhi 110005 Delhi Pan: Aaacl9483H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Mayankpatwari, Adv & Sh. Akashojha, Adv Revenue By Sh. Gouranga Chandra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 68

…1 DCIT Vs. La solitaire Jewels Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Vs La Solitaire Jewels Income Tax, Private Limited Room No. 316A, C. R. 2706, Bank Street Road, Building, I. P. Estate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- New Delhi 110005 Delhi PAN: AAACL9483H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. MayankPatwari, Adv and Sh. AkashOjha, Adv Revenue by Sh. Gouranga Chandra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMA…

Sanjay Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2255/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanjay Malhotra, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (3), Hs – 23, Second Floor, Kailash Colony, Delhi. New Delhi – 122 002. (Pan : Aaipm0514F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Order : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 27.10.2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.15,06,840/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…serably failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. 4.6 The essential features of cash deposits during the demonetization period have been lucidly and succinctly dealt with by the Vishakapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Hira Panna Jewellers (2021) 189 ITD 608. Being on similar facts this order is relied upon for relief in the subject case also. 4.7 According to the AO the deposits were to be added to the income of the Assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. The AO erred in failing to appreciate that Sec.68 of the Act applied to cash credits. It does not apply to sales receipts. Besides Sec.68 of the Act deems a…

Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited, Hardoi vs. ACIT, Sitapur

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

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

…I.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'B', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Vs. ACIT, Limited, Sitapur. C/o Sanjay Saxena, 12, Pratap Enclave, Bisrat G. T. Road, Shahjahanpur. PAN:AACCK3717F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (D.R.) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:Α.Μ. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024 has been filed by t…

ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Pradeep Patil, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2671/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2671/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Acit Vs Pradeep Patil Circle-49(1) 306, Gold Plaza Building, Room No. 1505, E-2 Block, Gurudwara Road, Dr.Spm Civic Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Baipp4632G

Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 ITA No. 2671/Del/2022 ACIT Vs. Pradeep Patil IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [DELHI BENCH:“B” New Delhi] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2671/DEL/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) ACIT Vs Pradeep Patil Circle-49(1) 306, Gold Plaza Building, Room No. 1505, E-2 Block, Gurudwara Road, Dr.SPM Civic Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: BAIPP4632G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Ms. Mansi Jain, CA and Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement…

Income Tax Officer, C.R. Building, ITO vs. Sunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 4039/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Upvan Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Page 1 ITA No.4039/Del/2024 Sunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4039/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, C.R. Building, Room No. 238B, 2nd Floor, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Vs. Sunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 20, New Rajdhani Enclave, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi - 110092 स्थायीलेखासं . / जी आइआरसं . / PAN/GIR No: AANCS4339J Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Upvan Gupta, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date o…

Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 488/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Peeyush Agarwal The ITO, Vs. 197, Johari Bazar, Ward-1(5), Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKZPA9803G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. & Shri Gulshan Agarwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CI…

Arihant Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 590/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…llowing: a. ITO v. Ankit Gold Ltd. - ITA No. 429/Ahd/2024 b. ACIT v. Radhika Jewellers - ITA 201/Ahd/2023; c. DCIT v. Radhika Diamonds - ITA 1632/Ahd/2024; d. CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., ITA 2471 of 2009 (Guj); e. ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers - [2021]189 ITD 608 (Vishakhapatnam); f. Sanand Textiles Industries v. DCIT - ITA 995/Ahd/2014; g. ITO v. Rajeshkumar Chhanalal Shah - ITA 2159/Ahd/2016 The Ld. AR thus urged that the addition of Rs. 43,88,500/- made u/s. 68 of the Act may be deleted. 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the authorities below. The Ld. DR submitted that the aver…

Kulbhushan Sahtani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4066/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kulbhushan Sahtani, Vs Ito, 2525/7, Bedanpura, Ward-51(5), Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. New Delhi Pan-Bknps5543L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Goyal, Ar & Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…03.2025; (vii) Rakesh Malhotra, Delhi vs ITO, Ward-36(4), Delhi in ITA No.3571/Del/2023 [AY 2017-18] dated 17.05.2024; (viii) Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, New Delhi vs ITO in ITA No.1540/Del/2022 (AY 2017-18) dated 27.03.2023; ACIT vs Hirapanna Jewellers [2021] 189 ITD 608 (Visaks). He thus, submits that the addition made deserves to be deleted. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that AO in para 7 of the assessment order has given the detailed reasons for making the additions according to which the assessee has failed to file date-wi…