What is CIT v. Paradise Holidays authority for?

Regularly maintained and audited books of account, free from auditor qualifications, are presumed correct. The Revenue bears the onus to prove specific defects or unreliability to justify rejecting such books under Section 145(3) or making additions.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Paradise Holidays?

104 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Paradise Holidays (325 ITR 13), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Paradise Holidays come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132(4), Section 133(6), Section 69A, Section 147, Section 133A.

CIT v. Paradise Holidays (325 ITR 13)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…, the facts are even stronger as the assessing officer has not even rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. 47 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others • The Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of CIT CIT CIT v CIT v v v Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held as under:- Paradise Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) 5. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the Account Books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining regular Books of Acc…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…, the facts are even stronger as the assessing officer has not even rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. 47 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others • The Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of CIT CIT CIT v CIT v v v Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held as under:- Paradise Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) 5. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the Account Books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining regular Books of Acc…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…made. In the case of the assessee before your honour, the facts are even stronger as the assessing officer has not even rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. • The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of CIT v Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held as under:- 5. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the Account Books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining regular Books of Accounts, which were duly audited by an independent Chartered Accountant. As noted by CIT(A), the financial results were fully suppor…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…, the facts are even stronger as the assessing officer has not even rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. 47 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others • The Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of CIT CIT CIT v CIT v v v Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held as under:- Paradise Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) 5. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the Account Books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining regular Books of Acc…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…made. In the case of the assessee before your honour, the facts are even stronger as the assessing officer has not even rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. • The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of CIT v Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held as under:- 5. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the Account Books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining regular Books of Accounts, which were duly audited by an independent Chartered Accountant. As noted by CIT(A), the financial results were fully suppor…

KDJP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 5900/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Kdjp Steels Private Limited, Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Plot No.50, Flat No.A-201, Delhi. Parshav Vihar, Patpar Ganj, Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aacck6905F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate; Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…owing judicial pronouncements: a) 441 ITR 550 PCIT vs Agson Global (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) b) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas b) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. 5 c) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports d) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays e) ITA No. 999/2010 dated 03.08.2010 CIT vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. f) ITA No. 165/2010 dated 04.05.2017 CIT vs. M/s Pashupati Nath Agro Food Products (P) Ltd 5.3 Once cash sales to the tune of Rs. 78,58,256/- have already been offered as income, in the total sales of the year amounting to Rs 49,79,97,64…

JAMALUDDIN S/O SHRI CHUNIR AHMED,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 3551/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3550 & 3551/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jamaluddin s/o Sh. Chunir Vs. ITO, Ahmed, Ward-1(3), Ward No. 06, Rafikabad, Ghaziabad Dasna Dehat, Ghaziabad PAN :AFAPJ5448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Prasher, Adv. Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 17.12.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment year 2014-15, ari…

JAMALUDDIN, GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 3550/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3550 & 3551/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jamaluddin s/o Sh. Chunir Vs. ITO, Ahmed, Ward-1(3), Ward No. 06, Rafikabad, Ghaziabad Dasna Dehat, Ghaziabad PAN :AFAPJ5448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahil Sharma, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Prasher, Adv. Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 17.12.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment year 2014-15, ari…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…pany were incorrect or incomplete and thus once audited books of accounts stand accepted and not rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act; addition is not tenable. That appellant company in this regard seeks to place reliance upon following judicial pronouncements: i) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays ii) ITA No. 999/2010 (Del) dated 03.08.2010 CIT vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. iii) 326 ITR 223 (Del) CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani iv) 324 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports v) ITA No. 796/2011 (Del) dated 3.05.2012 CIT vs. Winner Constructions (P) Ltd.) vi) 372 ITR 381 (Del) CIT v. Zohra Emporium VI)…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, DELHI, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. SANJAY SALES AGENCY, FATEHPURI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 963/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ise duty on the Assessee’s products ranges 19 DCIT Vs. Sanjay Sales Agency from 38.64% to 67.69%. Thus the indirect tax on the sales varies from 51.14% to 87.69%. 13. The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of CIT v Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held as under:- 6. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the Account Books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining regular Books of Accounts, which were duly audited by anindependent Chartered Accountant. As noted by CIT(A), the financial results were fully suppor…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 797/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito Ward 1(3) Shree Balaji Processors बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 Tajpur Road, Opp. Central Jail Vs. Ludhiana - 141010 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actfs-8428-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 23-12-2018 Rejecting Books Of The Assessee & Assessing Business Profit Of Rs.12.81 Crores. The Ld. Cit(A) Reversed The Action Of Ld. Ao Against Which The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us With Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. That The Cit(A), Ludhiana Has Erred In Law, In Deleting Addition Of Rs.12,01,85,191/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

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

…s wherein it has been held that no specific defect or discrepancy in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant has been pointed out by the AO then there is no reason to reject the books of accounts of the appellant. a. CIT vs. Paradise Holidays (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Del HC) Where the AO has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the account books maintained by the appellant which are duly audited by an independent chartered accountant, there was no justification in rejecting the books of accounts and making the addition to the declared income. b. CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223 (De…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. AZAD COACH PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6006/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 250

…is of pure guess work as he has not made any 3 | P a g e ground/justification/basis for making the addition or deriving the profit @8% of the turnover. 1.6 The issue is also covered by the judgment of Hon’ble HC in CIT v. Paradise Holidays (Del.) (HC) (2010), 325 ITR 13 (Del.) wherein it was held that “The accounts which are regularly maintained in the course of business and are fully audited, free form any qualification by the auditors, should normally be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. The onus is upon the Revenue to show that either the book…

RITIKA GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4495/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

…n he recorded the reason. There should be link between the reasons and the evidence/material available with the Assessing Officer. xxviii. Attention of your honour is invited to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 (Del) wherein it wa held under: 12 Ritika Gems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. or has not pointed out any specific ........... Where the A. Ο. discrepancy in the account books maintained by the Assessee which duly audited by independent chartered accountants, there was no justification in rejecting the books of accounts and making the addition the declared inc…

SINGAL AND SONS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 4 , HISAR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 264/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansingal & Sons Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 4, Behind Sbi Main Branch, Hisar. Delhi Road, Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccs0362C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 10.07.2025 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)) Dated 06.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.5,90,940/- On 29.10.2017 For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Accordingly, Notices

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…the Chartered Accountant in compliance of section 44AB of the Act on the basis of presumptions without making any further investigation was erroneous and not appreciable. The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of CIT v Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held as under:- 6. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the Account Books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining regular Books of Accounts, which were duly audited by an independent Chartered Accountant. As noted by CIT(A), the financial results were fully suppor…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. GAURAV SINGHI, PRAGATIE STEELS,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 955/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133

…eported in 84 taxmann.com 52 (Madras). v). CIT vs. Anil Kumar & Co. in ITA No. 200001 & 200002 vide order dated 25.02.2016 (Karnataka HC) vi). 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas 8 vii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. viii) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays 16. It was further argued that the estimation @ 12.5% of the total purchases in respect of 8 parties totalling to Rs. 10,58,74,302/-, amounting to Rs., 1,32,34,287/- as made by the CIT(A) was bad in law. It was further argued that regarding 12.5% profit embedded in such purchases is also not correct, because the ra…

GAURAV SINGHI, PRAGATIE STEELS, NEAR SAI MANDIR ROAD, NASRALI,GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. ASSESSMENT UNITS NFAC DELHI, JURISDITIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER IT0-WARD-2, MANDI GOBINDGARH, PUNJAB

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 889/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133

…eported in 84 taxmann.com 52 (Madras). v). CIT vs. Anil Kumar & Co. in ITA No. 200001 & 200002 vide order dated 25.02.2016 (Karnataka HC) vi). 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas 8 vii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. viii) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays 16. It was further argued that the estimation @ 12.5% of the total purchases in respect of 8 parties totalling to Rs. 10,58,74,302/-, amounting to Rs., 1,32,34,287/- as made by the CIT(A) was bad in law. It was further argued that regarding 12.5% profit embedded in such purchases is also not correct, because the ra…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…6.2012.\ne) ITO vs. M/s Rajeev & Company in ITA No. 46/Lkw/2012 vide order dated\n17.12.2014\nf) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas\ng) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd.\nh) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports\ni) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays\n“6 The AO has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the account\nbooks maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining\nregular books of accounts, which were duly audited by an independent chartered\naccountant. As noted by CIT(A), the financial results were fully supported…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…d 25.06.2012. e) ITO vs. M/s Rajeev & Company in ITA No. 46/Lkw/2012 vide order dated 17.12.2014 f) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas g) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. h) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports i) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays “6 The AO has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the account books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining regular books of accounts, which were duly audited by an independent chartered accountant. As noted by CIT(A), the financial results were fully supported by…

SUSHIL KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22(2), DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3482/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sushil Kumar Vs. Acit Shreeram Overseas Circle-22(2) 5520, Bastiharpull C. R. Building, Singh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aalpk5068M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amit Goel, Adv & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac)’ For Short)- Delhi Dated 10/07/2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,50,99,530/- Made By The Ao 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)

…held that in the absence of any material pointing towards falsehood of accounts books, addition of gross profit and rejection of books of accounts cannot be made. 12. The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of CIT v Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held as under:- 8 Sushil Kumar Vs. ACIT 6. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the Account Books maintained by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had been maintaining regular Books of Accounts, which were duly audited by an independent Chartered Accountant. As noted by CIT(A), the financial…

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 102/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

…on of profit without rejecting the books of account placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Anil Kumar & Co. [2016] 386 ITR 702 (Ker) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Paradise Holidays [2010] 325 ITR 13. 8. On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR raised no serious objection. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We had carefully perused the assessment order and find that the AO had not given any finding as to how the aggregate profit can be deduced from the books of account maintained by the appellant…

CIT v. Paradise Holidays

What is CIT v. Paradise Holidays authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Paradise Holidays

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

KDJP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

JAMALUDDIN S/O SHRI CHUNIR AHMED,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(3), GHAZIABAD

JAMALUDDIN, GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GHAZIABAD

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, DELHI, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. SANJAY SALES AGENCY, FATEHPURI, DELHI

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. AZAD COACH PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

RITIKA GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

SINGAL AND SONS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 4 , HISAR

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. GAURAV SINGHI, PRAGATIE STEELS,

GAURAV SINGHI, PRAGATIE STEELS, NEAR SAI MANDIR ROAD, NASRALI,GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. ASSESSMENT UNITS NFAC DELHI, JURISDITIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER IT0-WARD-2, MANDI GOBINDGARH, PUNJAB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

SUSHIL KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22(2), DELHI

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM