Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. Dy. CIT

45 SOT 349Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#9799 most cited

What is Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. Dy. CIT authority for?

Excess stock found during a survey under section 133A is not automatically taxable as unexplained investment under section 69B if it is part of the assessee's business stock and subsequently included in the closing inventory.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal · section 133A · section 69B · excess stock · survey · unexplained investment · business income · closing stock

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133ASection 69Section 69BSection 69CSection 127Section 132Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 69bsurvey under section 133asection 115bbsection 115bsection 115bbeunexplained investmentsection 133aunexplained expendituresection 69cincome from other sourcessection 133section 115

Judgments citing Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. Dy. CIT

Gopal Jadwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1047/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 69

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gopal Jadwani, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of No.2, Flat No.102, 1st Floor, Income Tax, Sair Elite, Edward Road, Central Circle -1(4), Queens Road, Bangalore North, Bangalore. Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, S.O, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN – ACGPJ 8710 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Revenue by : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED,…

Shri Vishwakarama Jewellers, Akola vs. DCIT Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 99/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

…ing the said provisions is clearly shooting in the dark which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the order so passed therefore cannot be held as erroneous in the eyes of law." 20. In case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. Dy. CIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 300/45 SOT 349 (Ahd. - Trib.) briefly, the facts of the case were that during the course of survey under section 133A which was carried out at the premises of the Assessee, excess stock of gold and silver ornaments were found and in the return of income subsequently filed by the Assessee, he had included the value of excess stock as part of closing stock invento…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S Mrk Gold LLP, Bangalore

ITA 1026/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar J Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

…the case of M/s Shahnai V/s ITO 1(1), Ujjain, vide ITA No. 658/Ind/2014, dated 15-052015. • ACIT, Circle -1(1), Ujjain V/s M/s. A one Enclave, 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain ITA No. 828/Ind/2018 • Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. Dy. CIT (2011) 9 taxmann.com300/45 SOT 349 (Ahd.- Trib) Page 7 of 11 • Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Deccan jewellers (P.) Ltd.dated 02- 08-2021(2021) 132 taxmann.com 73 (Andhra Pradesh)/(2021) 438 ITR 13 ( HC of Andhra Pradesh) 9.1 I have heard the AR of the appellant and duly considered the submissions made. The assessing officer has considered excess stock found during the co…

Mukesh Kumar Ahuja, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…was no question of treating it as deemed income from undisclosed sources u/s 69, 69A, 69B, or 69C of the Act and the same was held to be in the nature of business income of the assessee. Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. DCIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 300/141 TTJ 1 (UO)/45 SOT 349 (Ahd.) In this case there was a survey u/s 133A at the premises of the assessee. Excess stock of gold and silver ornaments were found. The excess stock was included in the closing stock of the inventory while filing the return of income subsequently but the AO observed that the disclosure was not consistent with the provisions of sections 69B of t…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…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 jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 750/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2021-22 cuke Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Vs. K-14B Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Central Circle-01, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 3277 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 740/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2021-22 cuke DCIT A…

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Court and ITAT Jaipur, is well settled. The AOacted in accordance with the judicial guideline and the ratio laid in the cases of: a. CIT vs Bajargan Traders [2024] 466 ITR 397 b. Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal vs DCIT (ITA No. 3281/Ahd/2009 dated 05.08.2011/ (2011) 45 SOT 349). c. Shri Lovish Singhal vs ITO (ITA No 142 to 146/Jodh/2018 for AY 2014- 15 dated 25 May 2018). and applying the same on the facts of the case in hand, decided that the provisions of S.115BBE were not applicable and hence did not therefore apply high rate of tax. 9. (F) Clause (a) of Explanation 2 of S. 263 wrongly invoked: 9.1 The Id. CIT stated…

M/S Punya Shree Jewellers, S4Eoni Malwa vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, for the reasons mentioned above, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r

ITA 154/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Punya Shree Jewellers Pcit (1) Main Road, Seoni Malwa Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aapfp9682A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 69

…ng higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE. He has also relied upon the following decisions: 1. Pr. CIT vs. Deccan Jewellers (P.) Ltd. 132 taxmann.com 73 2. Pr. CIT vs. Alwar vs. Bajarang Traders (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.258/2017) 3. Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal vs. DCIT 45 SOT 349 4. 4. DCIT vs. Shri Ram Narayan Birla ITANo.482/JP/2015 5. Gandhi Ram vs. Pr. CIT 145 taxmann.com 109 6. M/s Brij Mohandas Devi Prasad vs. ACIT (ITANo.428/Ind/2022 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has admitted income on account of excess stock found during the survey and surrendered the same as additional income over a…

Deccan Jewellers Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2020[10000]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-2018) M/S Deccan Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of K.B.N.Complex Income Tax (Central) D.No.27-16-65 Visakhapatnam Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccd1524H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrim.V.Prasad.Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr 22.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

For Appellant: ShriM.V.Prasad.ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 69

…raham 48 taxmann.com 352 (Kerala HC) vi) Bajargan Traders Vs. ACIT ITA No.137/JP/17, dated 17.03.2017 vii) CIT Vs. S.K.Srigiri and Brothers 298 ITR 13 viii) DCIT Vs. V.Ram Narayan Birla ITA No.482/JP/2015 dated 30.09.2016 ix) Chaksi Hiralal Magan Lal Vs. DCIT 45 SOT 349 x) Daulatram Rawatmull Vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 xi) M/s A Star Exports ITA No.4411 Mumbai ITAT 4 I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2020, A.Y.2017-18 M/s Deccan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada xii) M/s Silver Palace, Pune Vs. DCIT ITA No.893/Pun/2016 The Ld.Pr.CIT considered the explanation offered by the assessee and viewed that the objections raised by the assessee…

Deccan Tobacco Company, Guntur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Viskhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Deccan Tobacco Company Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.5-7-6-1/5, Brodipet (Central) Guntur Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aahfd1174H]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 263Section 69

…Abraham 48 taxmann.com 352 (Kerala HC) vi) Bajargan Traders Vs. ACIT ITA No.137/JP/17, dated 17.03.2017 vii) CIT Vs. S.K.Srigiri and Brothers 298 ITR 13 viii) DCIT Vs. V.Ram Narayan Birla ITA No.482/JP/2015 dated 30.09.2016 ix) ChaksiHiralalMagan Lal Vs. DCIT 45 SOT 349 x) DaulatramRawatmull Vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 xi) M/s A Star Exports ITA No.4411 Mumbai ITAT xii) M/s Silver Palace, Pune Vs. DCIT ITA No.893/Pun/2016 2.1. The Ld.Pr.CIT considered the explanation offered by the assessee and viewed that the objections raised by the assessee are not acceptable and accordingly viewed that the excess stock found during th…

Dte Exports Private Limited, Guntur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 138/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.138/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Dte Exports Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.5-7-6, 1/5, Brodipet (Central) Guntur Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd7845B]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…on plethora of case laws of various Tribunal/High courts as mentioned in the explanation submitted before the AO and argued that the excess stock represents business income. He supported his argument placing reliance on M/s Chokshi Hiralal Manganlal Vs. DCIT 45 SOT 349. Taking our attention to paper book2, page No.13, the 10 I.T.A. No138/Viz/2020, A.Y.2017-18 M/s DTE Exports Private Ltd., Guntur Ld.AR submitted that the AO has called for explanation by show cause notice as to why the amount of Rs.4,41,46,445/- should not be treated as undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Act by applying provisions of section 11…

Crp Associates, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Cirle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1901/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1901/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Crp Associates Acit, Gandhinagar Cir. 117, First Floor Vs Gandhinagar. Suman City, Sector 11 Gandhinagar 382 010. Pan : Aaffc 9454 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…to a major extent. The partners did not take permissible remuneration of Rs.72,72,275 even in the assessment year 2011- 2012.” 6. For buttressing his contentions, with regard to the above, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal, 45 SOT 349/141 TTJ 1 (Ahd) ii) DCIT Vs. New Umiya Vijay Saw Mills, ITA No.2447/ahd/2012 7. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A). He contended that the assessee itself has accepted the stand disclosed during the course of survey by partly admitting the income at Rs.23 lakhs. Therefore, now the assessee is precluded to take bene…

Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. Dy. CIT (45 SOT 349) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax