What is CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog authority for?

Mere rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) does not automatically lead to an addition to income. The Assessing Officer must consider the books, historical data, and other collected material, after confronting the taxpayer, before making any estimation.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog?

89 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog (256 ITR 243), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 145(3), Section 144, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 250, Section 144B.

CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog (256 ITR 243)

LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelal Chand Choudhary Acit/ Dcit, Circle, S-8, Transport Nagar, Barmer Jaisalmer - 345001 Pan No. Aaopc 6671 K Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…le Jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 207 CTR 19 (Raj). 7 Asst. Year: 2017-18 14. He further placed reliance on the judgments of CIT Vs. Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog reported in 256 ITR 243 where it was held that even if technically it is held that provisions of Section 145(3) are applicable still the arbitrary addition cannot be made. The AR had requested that assessee’s sales may be accepted genuine and addition may be deleted. 15. The Ld. DR on the other hand relying on the order of the lower authorities. 16. From the records,…

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

ITA 342/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…ection 144 of the Act and proper opportunity is required to be given by pointing out the defects in the books of account which was not followed and thus the order is not correct. 2.1 The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog (2001) 256 ITR 243 (Raj) held that the books of account together with past history of the case as also material collected should be considered for estimation of income. The past history is the best guide where provisions of s. 145(3) of the Act are invoked as held in Ajay Goyal vs. ITO (2006) 99 TTJ (Jd)164, Madan Lal vs. ITO (2006) 99 TTJ (Jd) 538, CIT vs. Popular…

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 673/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…, it is apparent that the AO has failed to adhere to these established principles, resulting in an estimation that does not conform to the judicial guidelines. 9.1 Addition Need Not Be Made, Even if Sec.145 Invoked: The case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog (256 ITR 243, Raj) highlights that the mere rejection of books of account does not automatically necessitate an addition to the returned income. The court emphasized that, in such instances, the AO must consider the books of accounts alongside the historical data of the case and any material collected during the assessment process—after appropriately confront…

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 672/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…, it is apparent that the AO has failed to adhere to these established principles, resulting in an estimation that does not conform to the judicial guidelines. 9.1 Addition Need Not Be Made, Even if Sec.145 Invoked: The case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog (256 ITR 243, Raj) highlights that the mere rejection of books of account does not automatically necessitate an addition to the returned income. The court emphasized that, in such instances, the AO must consider the books of accounts alongside the historical data of the case and any material collected during the assessment process—after appropriately confront…

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 61/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…, it is apparent that the AO has failed to adhere to these established principles, resulting in an estimation that does not conform to the judicial guidelines. 9.1 Addition Need Not Be Made, Even if Sec.145 Invoked: The case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog (256 ITR 243, Raj) highlights that the mere rejection of books of account does not automatically necessitate an addition to the returned income. The court emphasized that, in such instances, the AO must consider the books of accounts alongside the historical data of the case and any material collected during the assessment process—after appropriately confront…

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 59/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…, it is apparent that the AO has failed to adhere to these established principles, resulting in an estimation that does not conform to the judicial guidelines. 9.1 Addition Need Not Be Made, Even if Sec.145 Invoked: The case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog (256 ITR 243, Raj) highlights that the mere rejection of books of account does not automatically necessitate an addition to the returned income. The court emphasized that, in such instances, the AO must consider the books of accounts alongside the historical data of the case and any material collected during the assessment process—after appropriately confront…

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 57/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…, it is apparent that the AO has failed to adhere to these established principles, resulting in an estimation that does not conform to the judicial guidelines. 9.1 Addition Need Not Be Made, Even if Sec.145 Invoked: The case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog (256 ITR 243, Raj) highlights that the mere rejection of books of account does not automatically necessitate an addition to the returned income. The court emphasized that, in such instances, the AO must consider the books of accounts alongside the historical data of the case and any material collected during the assessment process—after appropriately confront…

AMIT KUMAR SEN,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

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

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.388/KOL/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs ACIT, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (WB)-712410 PAN No. :AAVFS 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronoun…

COTTAGE HANDICRAFT TEXTILE EMPORIUM,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Tanuj Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…roviding any basis for his estimation nor giving any opportunity to the appellant for such estimation. It has been held in judgements that a rejection of accounts, however, would not necessarily imply a trading addition (CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udhyog [2002] 256 ITR 243/120 Taxman 779 (Raj.)), and it is open for the assessee to explain 11 Cottage Handicraft Textile Emporium vs. DCIT its trading results. In fact, the books of account are but only the assessee's explanation for its returned (trading) profit. [Hon'ble ITAT JAIPUR BENCH 'B' (THIRD MEMBER) in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Circ…

SATYA NARAYAN ,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1434/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1434/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Satya Narayan बनाम Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Shiv Charan Lal Satya Vs. Ward -1, Narayan, Navin Mandi Yard, Nadbai, Bharatpur Bharatpur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPN9055M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…in books of accounts of Rs. 33,17,981/-, he made addition of Rs. 1,29,91,435/-. The same shows arbitrariness & hasteness in action of AO. 3.4 That the appellant relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Rajatshan High Court in CIT v Gotan Lime stone khanij Udhyog (256 ITR 243) wherein it has been held that mere rejection of books of accounts need not necessarily lead to addition to returned income. It was held that books of accounts together with past history of the case as also material collected by the AO will form the very basis of making the addition. GOA 4: That ld CIT (A) erred in law as well in facts in not hol…

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…nd proper estimate of assessee’s income and inferences to be drawn from available material should be properly inferable inferences. 2.3.4 The same principles were propounded by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog (2002) 256 ITR 243 (Raj): 3. However, your honour shall find that the lower authorities in the present case have not conformed to these settled principles by the courts, while making the impugned assessment u/s 144 as elaborated hereunder: 15 Kailash Chand vs. ITO 3.1 The very first eye-opening example of complete non-application of mind and the highly arbitrary…

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

…1 SHRI PUNEET SINGHVI VS ITO, WARD 2(1), KOTA आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1294/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 cuke Shri Puneet Singhvi The ITO Vs. 124, Old Dhan Mandi, Ward 2(1) Agrasen Bajar Rampura, Kota – 324 005 Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AVJPS 5149 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu…

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

ITA 160/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

…Kumar (2009) (P & H HC) (2009) 316 ITR 324 26. Inani Marbles (P) Ltd (2008) (Raj HC) (2008) 175 Taxman 56/316 ITR 125 27. Bhawan V A Path Nirman (Bohra) & Co (2002) (Raj HC) (2003) 126 Taxman 210 28. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog (2001) (Raj HC) (2002) Taxman 779/256 ITR 243 29. Poornachand Agarwal (2021) (Raipur Trib) (2021) ITA No. 182/RPR/2017 30. Mohan Sukumaran (2020) (Raipur-Trib) (2020) 34 NYPTTJ 942; ITA no. 62/RPR/2013 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari 31. NH Construction (P) Ltd (2022) (Chd-Trib) (2022) 36 YPTTJ 863; ITA No. 164/Chd/2020 32. JSR Construction (P) Ltd (2016) (Agra-Trib) (2012) 1…

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

ITA 159/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

…Kumar (2009) (P & H HC) (2009) 316 ITR 324 26. Inani Marbles (P) Ltd (2008) (Raj HC) (2008) 175 Taxman 56/316 ITR 125 27. Bhawan V A Path Nirman (Bohra) & Co (2002) (Raj HC) (2003) 126 Taxman 210 28. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog (2001) (Raj HC) (2002) Taxman 779/256 ITR 243 29. Poornachand Agarwal (2021) (Raipur Trib) (2021) ITA No. 182/RPR/2017 30. Mohan Sukumaran (2020) (Raipur-Trib) (2020) 34 NYPTTJ 942; ITA no. 62/RPR/2013 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari 31. NH Construction (P) Ltd (2022) (Chd-Trib) (2022) 36 YPTTJ 863; ITA No. 164/Chd/2020 32. JSR Construction (P) Ltd (2016) (Agra-Trib) (2012) 1…

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

ITA 158/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69

…Kumar (2009) (P & H HC) (2009) 316 ITR 324 26. Inani Marbles (P) Ltd (2008) (Raj HC) (2008) 175 Taxman 56/316 ITR 125 27. Bhawan V A Path Nirman (Bohra) & Co (2002) (Raj HC) (2003) 126 Taxman 210 28. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog (2001) (Raj HC) (2002) Taxman 779/256 ITR 243 29. Poornachand Agarwal (2021) (Raipur Trib) (2021) ITA No. 182/RPR/2017 30. Mohan Sukumaran (2020) (Raipur-Trib) (2020) 34 NYPTTJ 942; ITA no. 62/RPR/2013 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari 31. NH Construction (P) Ltd (2022) (Chd-Trib) (2022) 36 YPTTJ 863; ITA No. 164/Chd/2020 32. JSR Construction (P) Ltd (2016) (Agra-Trib) (2012) 1…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 458/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H.)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…rd by the ld. AO. even in case of a scenario of rejection of books of accounts, no addition over and above surrendered income is called for on the issue. The appellant has relied upon the following judgements in this regard:- • CIT Vs. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243(Raj) • Malani Ramjivan JagannathVs. ACIT 207 CTR (Raj.)19 • Kansara Bearings P. Ltd Vs. ACIT 270 ITR 235 (Raj) • CIT Vs. Inani Marbles Pvt Ltd. 316 ITR 125 (Raj.) (HC) • CIT Vs. Sh. Sindhuja Foods Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 16 DTR 278 dt. 24.10.2008(Raj.) (HC) • CIT Vs. Vaibhav Gems Ltd. (2014) 112 DTR 84 dt. 21.08.2014 (Raj) • DCIT Vs. M/s Gems Paradise I…

RATAN KUMAR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44

…position of law that merely because there is some deficiency in books of accounts or merely because rejection of books of accounts does not lead to addition to return income. The submissions are drawing support from the following case laws :- “ Ref : [2002] 256 ITR 243(Rajasthan) in case of CIT Vs Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog held that “Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – method of accounting – Rejection of account – Assessment year 1986- 87 – Whether section 145(1)/(2) as amended with effect from 1-4- 1997, does not mean that rejection of books of account of an assessee must yield to different conclusion in…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 454/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e the books of accounts have been rejected, there is no basis for making trading addition in the hands of the assessee. In this regard, reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon'ble of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog (2002) 256 ITR 243 In light of aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the decisions referred supra, the addition of Rs 21,65,807/- so confirmed by the Id CIT(A) is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee is allowed. 5.2.3 In the appellant's own case in AY 2010-11, AO disallowed 25% of purchase and made addition at…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…e the books of accounts have been rejected, there is no basis for making trading addition in the hands of the assessee. In this regard, reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon'ble of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog (2002) 256 ITR 243 In light of aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the decisions referred supra, the addition of Rs 21,65,807/- so confirmed by the Id CIT(A) is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee is allowed. 5.2.3 In the appellant's own case in AY 2010-11, AO disallowed 25% of purchase and made addition at R…

VIMLADEVI AGROTECH LIMITED ,KOTA vs. ACIT, WD -1(2), KOTA, KOTA

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

ITA 1065/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1065/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15. cuke Vimla Devi Agrotech Ltd., Assistant Commissioner of 45, Basant Vihar Special, Vs. Income-tax, Ward 1(2), Kota-324 009. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@ PAN/GIR No. AACCV 5971 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary,…

CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog

What is CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog

LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

AMIT KUMAR SEN,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

COTTAGE HANDICRAFT TEXTILE EMPORIUM,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

SATYA NARAYAN ,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, BHARATPUR

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

RATAN KUMAR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , JAIPUR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

VIMLADEVI AGROTECH LIMITED ,KOTA vs. ACIT, WD -1(2), KOTA, KOTA