How many judgments cite CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar?

212 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar (263 ITR 610), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 148, Section 153A.

CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar

263 ITR 610High Court2003#427 most cited

What is CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar authority for?

When making an addition for unaccounted receipts, on-money, or non-genuine purchases/sales, the addition should be restricted to the estimated profit element embedded in such transactions, rather than the entire gross amount, particularly when evidence of corresponding expenditure is incomplete. This estimation often involves applying a net profit rate.

212

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 145(3) · addition restricted to profit · estimated profit · unaccounted receipts · on-money · bogus purchases · non-genuine sales · net profit rate · income estimation

Also reported as

135 Taxmann 180

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 148 Section 153A Section 145(3)Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 256(1)section 256 on money receipt on-money rejection of books of account loose papers section 145(3)survey under section 133a section 145 section 132(4a)section 292c block period

Judgments citing CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar

The ACIT, Circle-2, Bhavnagar vs. M/S. Madhav Steels, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2274/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: 22/08/2017

Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ounted sales” have been discovered, only “embedded profit element” added in assessee’s hands and that too based on “Net Profit”. Learned AR has relied on following judgment, as under: " President Industries – 258 ITR 654 (Guj) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar – 263 ITR 610 (MP) " Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT – 304 ITR 52 (MP) " Chetan C. Patel and others – IT(SS)A Nos.522-524/Ahd/2011 “Goss Profit” rate of the assessee is 4.07% and “Net Profit” rate is 1.65% and same is mentioned at Page No.2 of Asst. Order. Hence, impugned addition be restricted to Net Profit element embedded in such alleged unaccounted sales. 5. Wit…

Sh. Manish Thakur, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4668/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. D. R

Section 68

…had been made by the assessee and that investment was also not disclosed, only the excess over the cost incurred could be treated as profit. 8 I. T. Appeal No. 4668/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Balchand Ajit Kumar [2003] 263 ITR 610 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Held, that the total sale could not be regarded as the profit of the assessee. The net profit rate aJ Aid to be adopted and once it was adopted it could not be said that there was perversity of approach. Whether the rate was low or high would depend upon the facts of each case. The assessing officer has made referenc…

Gudla Bhaskar Rao, Koraput vs. ACIT, Berhampur Circle, Berhampur

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

ITA 272/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-2010 DCIT, Berhampur Circle, Vs. Sri Gudia Bhaskar Rao, Bhoi Berhampur Street, Jeypore PAN/GIR No. ACCPR 7359 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-2010 C.O. No.35/CTK/2014 (in ITA No.17/CTK/2014) Sri Gudia Bhaskar Rao, Bhoi Vs. DCIT, Berhampur Circle, Street, Jeypore Berhampur PAN/GIR No. ACCPR 7359 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D.K.Sheth, AR Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 25/05/ 20…

Yazdani International (P) Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 17/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

ITO 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashwin Purshottam Bajaj, Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 5207/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ashwin Purshotam The Ito – Ward 16(2)(1), बनाम/ Bajaj, Mumbai. V. C/O Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5, Jolly Bhawan No. 2, 7 New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpb7522J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…sale, then it is required to the presumed that there is a corresponding purchase against each such sale and moreover, in impugned case, ITA 4736/Mum/2014 & 7 there is a direct nexus of sales with the purchases. [38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj), 355 ITR 290 (Guj), 263 ITR 610 (MP), 304 ITR 52 (MP), 258 ITR 654 (Gu}); As per comparative chart of sales vis-a-vis purchase (copy enclosed), it is evident that each purchase corresponds to the sales. For example : The purchase of 257 pairs of footwear made vide bill no 16 on 17th September, 2009 aggregating to Rs. 126,333 from Deep Enterprises were sold on 23rd September, 2…

Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 4736/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

Smt Soma Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-51(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 603/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.603/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Bhattacharya, JCIT

Section 144

…5,918/- and the corresponding purchases declared was Rs.7,02,359/-. As already stated, the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon;ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs President Industries Ltd. 258 ITR 654(Guj) and CIT vs Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610(MP) wherein it has been held that the total sale cannot be represented as profit and only the net profit rate has to be applied on the total sales. The assessee gave an average percentage of gross profit in the past three assessment years as follows :- For the Year Sales Gross profit Gross profit Ratio = Gross Profit/sales ending (in Rs.) (Rs.)…

ITO, Ward-53(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Chittaranjan Ghosh, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1549/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…less there is any material on record to suggest that the assessee had made any investment outside books of account to make alleged unaccounted sales. This proposition has been followed in various judicial pronouncements like CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP)/135 Taxman 180 (MP), CIT vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (GUJ)/124 Taxman 654 (GUJ) and Manmohan Sadani vs. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP). Under the circumstances only profit shown by the appellant on the sales of the undisclosed materials/ items purchased by the appellant can be brought to tax. The appellant has worked out estimate…

Biswabrata Maity, Hooghly vs. CIT, -Xx, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1188/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69

…credit sales made by him outside account books, it was held that total sales could not be regarded as profit of assessee and net profit rate had to be adopted on those sales as an immutable proposition while making addition [CIT Vs- Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP)]. Thus, the AO took the most reasonable and possible view that income from undisclosed trading activity is to be confined to the net profit earned in such activity. It is precisely settled in this respect that an order of assessment passed by an ITO. Therefore, should not be interfered with only because another view is possible [CIT - Vs- Gr…

Sri. K. Venkatesh, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/BANG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 44A

…t the CIT(Appeals) ought to have determined the income of the assessee on the basis of net profit earned in accordance with the directions of the ITAT. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar, 263 ITR 610 (MP), wherein it was held that the total sale could not be regarded as profit of the assessee. The net profit rate had to be adopted and once it was adopted, it could not be said that there was perversity of approach. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hariram Bhamb…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga vs. M/S Karthik Poultry Farm, Chitradurga

In the result, revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12

ITA 1106/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1106(B)/2014 (Assessment year : 2011-12) The Income-tax Officer Ward-1, Chitradurga Appellant Vs M/s Karthik Poultry Farm, Gundluru, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga PAN No.AALFK4285C Respondent Revenue by : Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT Assessee by : Shri S. Venkatesan, CA Date of hearing : 04-11-2015 Date of pronouncement : 06-11-2015 PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, AM: This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Hubli dated…

Dharam Pal Dhingra Prop. Dharampal Dhingra Electroncs vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed but no order as to

ITA/36/2008HC Delhi28 May 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

Section 132Section 260

…ITA No.36/2008 Page 1 of 5 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + ITA No.36/2008 Judgment reserved on : 30th April, 2008 % Judgment delivered on: 28th May, 2008 DHARAM PAL DHINGRA, PROP. DHARAMPAL DHINGRA ELECTRONICS 3 OLD LAJPATRAI MARKET DELHI ...Appellant Through : Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Adv. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ....Respondent DELHI-XVII, MAYUR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI Through : Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH 1.…