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)

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

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

ITA 463/COCH/2016[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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Maharaja Silks, Thiruvarur

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2506/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2506/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Maharaja Silks बनाम/ Central Circle -2, 117/2, Thanjai Salai, Vs. Trichy. Vijayapuram, Thiruvarur-610 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abffm-0968-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Department For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 29.07.2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 260 Of The Act On 29.09.2022. The Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are As Under: - 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.1,40,60,546/- Made On Account Of Undisclosed Business Profit; 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Observing That The Ao Had Wrongly Compared Unaudited P&L Account With The Audited P&L Account Without Appreciating The Statutory Position That The Survey

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

…to examine stock position in unaudited books as on the date of survey and compare it with the audited books at the time of assessment; 2.2 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in relying on the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Paradise Holidays (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi)' which are general in nature but, In the instant case, a survey was conducted and discrepancy in accounts was noticed; 2.3 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs.44,26,962/- (page no. 12 of asst. order) that was accepted by the assessee in response to show cause notice. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not sust…

M/S. Sbs Brothers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1895/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Brothers, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.44/55, Strotten Muthiah Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-79 Chennai [Pan: Aahfs6119B]

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

…0.09% in immediately preceding assessment years viz 2017-18 and 2016-17. The rise during the present year was attributable to the additional income disclosed. The Ld. Counsel placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Paradised Holidays 325 ITR 13 and of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of KSM Gurusamy Nadar & Sons 149 ITR 127 argued that when no defects are pointed in the books by the Ld. AO and the same are accepted, no additions can be made to the returned income. The Ld. Counsel contested invocation of section 69A and 69B on the premise that the same was non-maintainable. The Ld. C…

M/S. Sbs Agencies, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1894/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Agencies, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 079. Chennai [Pan: Aalfs9107M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Add.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

…0.09% in immediately preceding assessment years viz 2017-18 and 2016-17. The rise during the present year was attributable to the additional income disclosed. The Ld. Counsel placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Paradised Holidays 325 ITR 13 and of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of KSM Gurusamy Nadar & Sons 149 ITR 127 argued that when no defects are pointed in the books by the Ld. AO and the same are accepted, no additions can be made to the returned income. The Ld. Counsel contested invocation of section 69A and 69B on the premise that the same was non-maintainable. The Ld. C…

ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Proptiger Realty Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed s per decision above

ITA 7351/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh.S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs. Proptiger Realty Pvt. Ltd. D-12, 1St Floor, Sector-3, Circle – 20 (1) New Delhi Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Pan No.Aabci5915L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271

…e Chartered Accountants. The action of adhoc disallowance @ 20% out of numerous expenses is not justified nor reasoned absent any specific findings on the defects in the appellant accounts. Ld AR also relied on the judgement of CIT vs Paradise Holidays (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi High Court) where it has been held that when the accounts are audited, the burden of proof is on the AO to prove that such accounts are incorrect or incomplete or the method of accounting is defective and only in that eventuality any adverse inference can be drawn. View of the above, on the facts and in absence of any specific defects in t…

DCIT, Patiala vs. Prime Steel Industries Private Limited, Dirba

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 500/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 275/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Prime Steel Industries Private Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 500/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Dcit, Vs. Prime Steel Industries Private बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate & Shri Viboore Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Viboore Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 69C

…disproved, either by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) and relied upon on number of judgments of jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Om Overseas, reported in 315 ITR 185 (P&H), Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paradise Holidays, 325 ITR 13 and other case laws that under such circumstances, where no specific defects have been pointed out in the maintenance of record, 275 & 500-Chd-2024 – Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Dibra, Sangrur, 15 the addition on account of 'profit embedded' in resect of alleged bogus purchases cannot be sustained. 20. The Ld. Counsel also relied upon the…

Prime Steel Industries Private Limited, Semi Industry Plot No.-27, Anaj Mandi Dirba, Sangrur, Punjab vs. The Assessing Officer NFAC, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT Circle Patiala, Patiala, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 275/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 275/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Prime Steel Industries Private Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 500/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Dcit, Vs. Prime Steel Industries Private बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate & Shri Viboore Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Viboore Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 69C

…disproved, either by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) and relied upon on number of judgments of jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Om Overseas, reported in 315 ITR 185 (P&H), Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paradise Holidays, 325 ITR 13 and other case laws that under such circumstances, where no specific defects have been pointed out in the maintenance of record, 275 & 500-Chd-2024 – Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Dibra, Sangrur, 15 the addition on account of 'profit embedded' in resect of alleged bogus purchases cannot be sustained. 20. The Ld. Counsel also relied upon the…

Khoobsoorat Fabrics Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 14(3), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 428/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 68

…als and, appellant in this regard seeks to place reliance upon following judicial pronouncements: i) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas ii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports iv) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays (extract at page 175 of Paper Book and pages 10-13 of JPB) v) ITA No. 999/2010 dated 03.08.2010 CIT vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. (extract at page 175 of Paper Book) vi) ITA No. 336/Ind/2012 dated 31.10.2012 ACIT vs. Dewas Soya Ltd. (extract at page 176 of Paper Book) vii) ITA No. 165/2010 dated 04.05.2017 CI…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ade unaccounted payments in the instant year. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas ii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. iii) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports iv) 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…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ade unaccounted payments in the instant year. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas ii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. iii) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports iv) 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…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ade unaccounted payments in the instant year. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas ii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. iii) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports iv) 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…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ade unaccounted payments in the instant year. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas ii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. iii) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports iv) 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…

ACIT, Circle-10(1), C.R Building, ITO, Delhi vs. Hari Om Retail Private Limited, Shakti Nagar, Delhi

ITA 1700/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vibhu Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…simply doubted that cash deposited was not out of the cash sales made by the assessee and duly recorded in the books of account etc., but from unaccounted sources, without any cogent reasons. Reliance was placed on the decision in CIT v. 5 Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 (Del. HC), Ashoke Refractories (P.) Ltd. vs CIT: 279 ITR 457 (Cal HC)] 3.4 Then it is submitted that section 68 of the Act is not applicable to business receipts recorded as sales. It is also submitted that receipts in cash against sale consideration cannot be added under section 68 of the Act for which reliance wa placed on the following cases:…

ACIT (Central)-1, Bhopal vs. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 297/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234A

…2008 concluded that in the absence of rejection of books, the estimation of profit is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse. In CIT vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) 386 ITR 702 (Kar.), the Hon’ble High Court echoed the same view. In CIT v. Paradise Holidays [2010] 325 ITR 13 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that if accounts which are regularly maintained in the course of business and are duly audited, free from any qualification by the auditors, should normally be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. 3.2.9 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of…

Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 271/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Som Distilleries & Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Breweries Limited, 1(1), Vs. Som House, Bhopal. 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay:2014-15 Acit (Central)-1, Som Distilleries & बनाम/ Bhopal Breweries Limited, Vs. Som House, 23, Zone Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Aabcs3374B) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234A

…2008 concluded that in the absence of rejection of books, the estimation of profit is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse. In CIT vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) 386 ITR 702 (Kar.), the Hon’ble High Court echoed the same view. In CIT v. Paradise Holidays [2010] 325 ITR 13 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that if accounts which are regularly maintained in the course of business and are duly audited, free from any qualification by the auditors, should normally be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. 3.2.9 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Bhopal vs. Som Distilleries Private Limited, Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 289/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…, unreasonable and perverse. In CIT vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) Page 17 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023 - A.Y. 2014-15 386 ITR 702 (Kar.), the Hon’ble High Court echoed the same view. In CIT v. Paradise Holidays [2010] 325 ITR 13 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that if accounts which are regularly maintained in the course of business and are duly audited, free from any qualification by the auditors, should normally be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. 3.2.6 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of…

Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(3), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 272/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…, unreasonable and perverse. In CIT vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) Page 17 of 54 Som Distilleries Private Limited I.T.A. Nos. 272 & 289/Ind/2023 - A.Y. 2014-15 386 ITR 702 (Kar.), the Hon’ble High Court echoed the same view. In CIT v. Paradise Holidays [2010] 325 ITR 13 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that if accounts which are regularly maintained in the course of business and are duly audited, free from any qualification by the auditors, should normally be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. 3.2.6 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of…

Neeraj Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi

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

ITA 1591/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 3Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2019-20 Neeraj Jain Vs. DCIT 388/5, 1st Floor, Khari Baoli Central Circle-31 Delhi New Delhi TAN/PAN: ABQPJ3048Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri Amit Goel, Chartered Accountant Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 03 07 2024 Date of pronouncement: 25 07 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the C…

Aabhushan, Dhamnod, Madhya Pradesh vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…and the same may be deleted. 16.2 In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Ballabh Das and Sons (supra)as well as decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 and submitted that Hon’ble High Court has held that accounts which are regularly maintained in the course of business and are duly audited free from any qualification by the auditors, should normally be taken as correct unless some defect is found or there are adequate reasons to indicate unreliability of the accounts. The onus is on the revenue t…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -I vs. M/S Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/863/2019HC Delhi01 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 260A

…ITA 862/2019 & ITA 863/2019 Page 1 of 15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13 February 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 01 March 2024 + ITA 862/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, SSC and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC versus M/S FORUM SALES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Ashwin Kataria, Advs. + ITA 863/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -1 .…

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

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Maharaja Silks, Thiruvarur

M/S. Sbs Brothers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

M/S. Sbs Agencies, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Proptiger Realty Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

DCIT, Patiala vs. Prime Steel Industries Private Limited, Dirba

Prime Steel Industries Private Limited, Semi Industry Plot No.-27, Anaj Mandi Dirba, Sangrur, Punjab vs. The Assessing Officer NFAC, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT Circle Patiala, Patiala, Punjab

Khoobsoorat Fabrics Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 14(3), New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

ACIT, Circle-10(1), C.R Building, ITO, Delhi vs. Hari Om Retail Private Limited, Shakti Nagar, Delhi

ACIT (Central)-1, Bhopal vs. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., Bhopal

Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(1), Bhopal

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Bhopal vs. Som Distilleries Private Limited, Bhopal

Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(3), Bhopal

Neeraj Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi

Aabhushan, Dhamnod, Madhya Pradesh vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -I vs. M/S Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd