CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Yagnik Road Highstreet LLP, Rajkot

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 511 To 513/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 684/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 Order

…extent of estimated profits embedded in sales for which the net profit rate was adopted and hence no referrable question of law arises.; 1) Similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) and the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. SaiKrupa Construction (2007) 13 SOT 459 (Mumbai). 4.5 In view of the facts of the case and respectfully following the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal, where there are incomplete evidences of both unaccounted income (on- money) and unaccounted expenditure incu…

Yagnik Road Highstreet LLP, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Rajkot

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 511 To 513/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing)

…extent of estimated profits embedded in sales for which the net profit rate was adopted and hence no referrable question of law arises.; 1) Similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) and the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. SaiKrupa Construction (2007) 13 SOT 459 (Mumbai). 4.5 In view of the facts of the case and respectfully following the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal, where there are incomplete evidences of both unaccounted income (on- money) and unaccounted expenditure inc…

Yagnik Road Highstreet LLP, Rajkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Rajkot

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 511 To 513/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 684/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 Order

…extent of estimated profits embedded in sales for which the net profit rate was adopted and hence no referrable question of law arises.; 1) Similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) and the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. SaiKrupa Construction (2007) 13 SOT 459 (Mumbai). 4.5 In view of the facts of the case and respectfully following the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal, where there are incomplete evidences of both unaccounted income (on- money) and unaccounted expenditure incu…

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Buildfolio Realties LLP, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Vs Buildfolio Realities Llp Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 683/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 Vs Buildfolio Realities Llp Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

…extent of estimated profits embedded in sales for which the net profit rate was adopted and hence no referrable question of law arises. (1) Similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) and the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. SaiKrupa Construction (2007) 13 SOT 459 (Mumbai). 4.5 In view of the facts of the case and respectfully following the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal, where there are incomplete evidences of both unaccounted income (on- money) and unaccounted expenditure incu…

Buildfolio Realities LLP, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

…extent of estimated profits embedded in sales for which the net profit rate was adopted and hence no referrable question of law arises. (1) Similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) and the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. SaiKrupa Construction (2007) 13 SOT 459 (Mumbai). 4.5 In view of the facts of the case and respectfully following the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal, where there are incomplete evidences of both unaccounted income (on- money) and unaccounted expenditure inc…

Buildfolio Realities LLP, Rajkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

…extent of estimated profits embedded in sales for which the net profit rate was adopted and hence no referrable question of law arises. (1) Similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) and the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. SaiKrupa Construction (2007) 13 SOT 459 (Mumbai). 4.5 In view of the facts of the case and respectfully following the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal, where there are incomplete evidences of both unaccounted income (on- money) and unaccounted expenditure inc…

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Radhe Developers, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

…004- "It is well settled law that the entire amount of sale does not represent income of the assessee. It is only a price received by the seller of the goods and only the realization over cost that can be the profit.In case of CIT v. BalchandAjit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP), held that entire amount of sale proceeds cannot be regarded as profit of the assessee, the net profit rate had to be adopted for the purpose of addition. Similarly, Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Saint Synthetics Mill (2010) 3261TR 410 (Guj), held that addition was to be made not in respect of sale consideration but only in…

Radhe Developers, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

…004- "It is well settled law that the entire amount of sale does not represent income of the assessee. It is only a price received by the seller of the goods and only the realization over cost that can be the profit.In case of CIT v. BalchandAjit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP), held that entire amount of sale proceeds cannot be regarded as profit of the assessee, the net profit rate had to be adopted for the purpose of addition. Similarly, Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Saint Synthetics Mill (2010) 3261TR 410 (Guj), held that addition was to be made not in respect of sale consideration but only in…

Radhe Developers, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 549 & 550/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Radhe Developers Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 . Office No. 47, Ankur Commercial Center, Opp. Income Tax Office, Amruta Swaminarayan Gurukul, Estate Building, Near Girnar Gondal Road, Rajkot Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatfr3387E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

…004- "It is well settled law that the entire amount of sale does not represent income of the assessee. It is only a price received by the seller of the goods and only the realization over cost that can be the profit.In case of CIT v. BalchandAjit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP), held that entire amount of sale proceeds cannot be regarded as profit of the assessee, the net profit rate had to be adopted for the purpose of addition. Similarly, Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Saint Synthetics Mill (2010) 3261TR 410 (Guj), held that addition was to be made not in respect of sale consideration but only in…

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Krishna Developers, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…04 "It is well settled law that the entire amount of sale does not represent income of the assessee. It is only a price received by the seller of the goods and only the realization over cost that can be the profit. In case of CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP), held that entire amount of sale proceeds cannot be regarded as profit of the assessee, the net profit rate had to be adopted for the purpose of addition. Similarly, Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Saint Synthetics Mill (2010) 3261TR 410 (Guj), held that addition was to be made not in respect of sale consideration but only in…

Krishna Developers, Rajkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 1, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…04 "It is well settled law that the entire amount of sale does not represent income of the assessee. It is only a price received by the seller of the goods and only the realization over cost that can be the profit. In case of CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP), held that entire amount of sale proceeds cannot be regarded as profit of the assessee, the net profit rate had to be adopted for the purpose of addition. Similarly, Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Saint Synthetics Mill (2010) 3261TR 410 (Guj), held that addition was to be made not in respect of sale consideration but only in…

Krishna Developers, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Rajkot

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

…04 "It is well settled law that the entire amount of sale does not represent income of the assessee. It is only a price received by the seller of the goods and only the realization over cost that can be the profit. In case of CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP), held that entire amount of sale proceeds cannot be regarded as profit of the assessee, the net profit rate had to be adopted for the purpose of addition. Similarly, Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Saint Synthetics Mill (2010) 3261TR 410 (Guj), held that addition was to be made not in respect of sale consideration but only in…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Suresh Jewellers, Shakuntla Palace

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं No.244/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Sachchu Prasad, Kasap, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8058 Q & आयकर अपील सं No.245/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Prasad, Udwant Nagar, Kasap Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8056 A & आयकर अपील सं No.246/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Jewellers, Shakuntla Palace, Bakarganj, Patna, Bihar-800004 Pan No. :Adhfs 5624 G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shrirajat Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of The Id.Cit(A), Patna-3,All Dated 31.05.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2

…/- which was not in consonance with the accounting principles and the applicable law. The Ld. AR has relied upon following authorities to buttress his arguments:- 1. CIT vs President Industries Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj) 2. CIT vs BalchandAjit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) 3. Man Mohan Sadani vs CIT (2008) 304 ITR 52 4. Kishore Mohanlal Telwala vs ACIT (1999) 64 ITJ 543 (Ahd) 5. Agarwal Motors vs ACIT (1999) 68 ITD 407 (Jab) In all the above cited authorities the accounting principle has been reiterated that it is the net profit contained in the unrecorded sales that has to be added not the goods sales. 6 ITA…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Suresh Prasad, Bhojpur

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं No.244/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Sachchu Prasad, Kasap, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8058 Q & आयकर अपील सं No.245/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Prasad, Udwant Nagar, Kasap Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8056 A & आयकर अपील सं No.246/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Jewellers, Shakuntla Palace, Bakarganj, Patna, Bihar-800004 Pan No. :Adhfs 5624 G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shrirajat Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of The Id.Cit(A), Patna-3,All Dated 31.05.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2

…/- which was not in consonance with the accounting principles and the applicable law. The Ld. AR has relied upon following authorities to buttress his arguments:- 1. CIT vs President Industries Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj) 2. CIT vs BalchandAjit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) 3. Man Mohan Sadani vs CIT (2008) 304 ITR 52 4. Kishore Mohanlal Telwala vs ACIT (1999) 64 ITJ 543 (Ahd) 5. Agarwal Motors vs ACIT (1999) 68 ITD 407 (Jab) In all the above cited authorities the accounting principle has been reiterated that it is the net profit contained in the unrecorded sales that has to be added not the goods sales. 6 ITA…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Sachchu Prasad, Bhojpur

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं No.244/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Sachchu Prasad, Kasap, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8058 Q & आयकर अपील सं No.245/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Prasad, Udwant Nagar, Kasap Bihar-802206 Pan No. :Ajspp 8056 A & आयकर अपील सं No.246/Pat/2023 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Vs Suresh Jewellers, Shakuntla Palace, Bakarganj, Patna, Bihar-800004 Pan No. :Adhfs 5624 G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shrirajat Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of The Id.Cit(A), Patna-3,All Dated 31.05.2023For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2

…/- which was not in consonance with the accounting principles and the applicable law. The Ld. AR has relied upon following authorities to buttress his arguments:- 1. CIT vs President Industries Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj) 2. CIT vs BalchandAjit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) 3. Man Mohan Sadani vs CIT (2008) 304 ITR 52 4. Kishore Mohanlal Telwala vs ACIT (1999) 64 ITJ 543 (Ahd) 5. Agarwal Motors vs ACIT (1999) 68 ITD 407 (Jab) In all the above cited authorities the accounting principle has been reiterated that it is the net profit contained in the unrecorded sales that has to be added not the goods sales. 6 ITA…