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 13High Court2010#1046 most cited

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.

104

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Paradise Holidays · 325 ITR 13 · Section 145(3) · rejection of books of account · audited books · onus of proof Revenue · specific defects · Section 145 · Section 143(3) · presumption correctness books

Also reported as

2010 SCC OnLine DEL 1753

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 69A Section 147 Section 133A Section 145(3)Section 153A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

third party information section 158bb onus of proof rejection of books of account statement under section 132(4)retracted statement survey under section 133a section 145(3)section 131(1a)section 145 section 158b section 158

Judgments citing CIT v. Paradise Holidays

Ambrish Sarin, Agra vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 372/AGR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…se claimed by the assessee remained unverified, the Assessing Officer could have disallowed that particular expense but he can not reject its books of account. In support, he placed reliance on Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 where it was held “if any particular expense claimed by the assessee remained unverified, the Assessing Officer could have disallowed I.T.A No. 372/Agra/2018 8 that particular expense. But, that by itself could not be a ground for rejection of accounts as a whole u/s 145(3) of the Act.” 10. The ld. DR. supported the impugned order. 11. We have…

The ITO, WD-4, Thiruvalla vs. M/S.Toms Enterprises, Changanacherry

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 442/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No.442/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Toms Enterprises, Ward-4, Thiruvalla. 505/XII, Industrial Estate, Industrial Nagar, Veroor, P.O., Changanacherry, Kottayam-689 106. [PAN:AAEFT 3381R] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Venkitachalam M.S., CA Date of hearing 04/02/2019 Date of pronouncement 07/02/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is d…

M/S. Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6724/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. NARENDRA CHODHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:-6857/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Mehta Construction Company ACIT R-695, 2nd Floor, New Rajinder Vs. Circle – 62 (1) Nagar, New Delhi -110060 New Delhi PAN AAHFM3503D APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:-6724/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Mehta Construction Company DCIT R-695, 2nd Floor, New Rajinder Vs. Circle – 63 (1) Nagar, New Delhi -110060 New Delhi PAN AAHFM3503D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Mrs. Ranojain, Advocate Sh. Pran…

M/S Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6857/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143

M/S. Pbs Foods Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Jcit, Range-Ii Pbs Foods Pvt. Ltd., 126-127, First Floor, Vardhman Star Gurgaon Shop Mall, Sector-19, Faridabad

For Appellant: Sh. Daksh S. Bhardwaj, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Verma, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)

…on alleged suppression of production. In our opinion, the alleged shortfall in production could have been the basis for other additions but not for invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. We would like to refer to the case of Paradise Holidays (325 ITR 13) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein the court has held as follows: “The 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. The onus is upon…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kalindee Rail Nirman Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6654/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT (DR)

Section 15(3)

…rdinate Bench of Tribunal, “that absence of stocks register alone not a ground to reject books of account and to estimate the gross profit rate”, similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case sited as Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Paradise Holidays [2010] 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held that ‘when accounts managed by assessee neither defective nor incomplete, the books of accounts cannot be rejected merely on the account of low net profit. For ready perusal operative part of the Judgment of Pardise Holidays (Supra) is extracted as under:- “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the question as to whether the accounts p…

ITO 32(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vasundhara Chemplast Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 401/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…1 ITA 401/Mum/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.401/Mum/2017 (Assessment year: 2011-12) ITO 32(3)(5), Mumbai vs M/s Vasundhara Chemplast Industries, B-402, Royal Accord, Yogi Nagar, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-92 PAN : AACFV1823E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Smt. Pooja Swaroop Respondent by None Date of hearing 18-06-2018 Date of pronouncement 27-06-2018 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-44, Mu…

ACIT, Cir.-26(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Future Distributors, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 269/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 131Section 133A

…profits, he must give facts and figures in that regard and demonstrate that the impugned method of accounting adopted by the assessee results in under-estimation of profits and is, therefore, liable to be rejected. In the case of CIT –vs.- Paradise Holidays [325 ITR 13 (Del.)] cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee had been maintaining regular books of account, which were duly audited by an independent Chartered Accountant and the financial results were fully supported by the assessee with its books of account and vouchers. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it was held by the Hon’ble…

M/S. Pbs Foods Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 3818/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. B.R. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)

…ged shortfall in production could have been the basis for other additions but not for invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 7 ITA No. 3818/Del/2015. M/s PBS Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. We would like to refer to the case of Paradise Holidays (325 ITR 13) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein the court has held as follows: “The 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. The onus is upo…

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-21 vs. M/S Mehta Construction Co

The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms

ITA/314/2016HC Delhi08 Feb 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 145

…ed from the books of accounts maintained by the appellant which were also duly audited and no adverse inference was drawn by the auditor. If expenses claimed remained unexplained, A.O could have disallowed the same without rejecting the books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796(Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. V. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (…

The ACIT, B.K.Circle, Palanpur vs. M/S. Arihant Pumps Pvt. Ltd., Palanpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3341/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3341/Ahd/2014 & Cross Objection No.21/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: -None-

Section 271(1)(c)

…e assessee's income. Without this first step, the fact that the gross profit is low cannot by itself be a ground for taking a view that it is open to the Assessing Officer to make good the alleged deficiency in gross profit. 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. The onus is upon the Revenue to show th…

Jaya Marketing, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 12 (3), Mumbai

ITA 5131/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Jaya Marketing Vs. Addl Cit 12 (3) Vtm Building, Gala No.2,3,4, Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, M.K.Road Mehra Compound Andheri-Kurla Road Churchgate Mumbai - 400056 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aadfj5774D Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Jaya Marketing Vs. Addl Cit 12 (3) Vtm Building, Gala No.2,3,4, Mumbai – 400 020 Mehra Compound Andheri-Kurla Road Mumbai - 400056 Pan/Gir No. Aadfj5774D Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Jaya Marketing Vs. Acit 12 (3) Vtm Building, Gala No.2,3,4, Mumbai – 400 020 Mehra Compound Andheri-Kurla Road Mumbai - 400056 Pan/Gir No. Aadfj5774D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 254(2)

…T (SC) 26 ITR 775  Omar Salay Mohd SaitVs CIT (SC) 37 ITR 151  Md. Umer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 101ITR 525 (Patna)  Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Metro Shoes Ltd 306 ITR 130 (High Court of Bombay)  Commissioner of Income-tax V s. Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 (High Court of Delhi)  Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bindals Apparels 332ITR410 42-47 (High Court of Delhi)  LaljiHaridas Vs. Income-tax Officer & Am 43 ITR 387 (Supreme Court India)  Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Om Overseas 315 ITR 185 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) 24. The only issue which survives now is narrated by AO in para 4(b)(i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., 205, Kushal Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacc0292M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K. Chadha, Ca Date Of Hearing 28.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07/06/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv (In Short “Cit-A”) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.5614565/- On Account Of Contract Receipts, Ignoring The Fact That During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Company Failed To Justify Its Abnormally Low G. P. Rate Of 18.16% In Current Year From 28.9% Last Year. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.14591310/- On Account Of Payment Of Lurgi Life Science(Lls) Germany For Drawing Design Charges, Ignoring The Fact That Benefit Of Enduring Nature Was Drawn By The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nd vouchers, I cannot appreciate that how the Ld. AO can jump to a conclusion based on the losses made by the assessee during the financial year. Here, we may refer with profit, the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Paradise Holidays [2010] 325 ITR 13 (Delhi). The Jurisdictional High Court at Pages 16 & 17 have held as under: “Section 145(3) of Act provides for assessment in the manner prescribed in section 144 of the Act where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or where either the method of accounting provided in sub-sec…

Himmat Mal Doshi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 276/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G.L. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)

Section 145(3)Section 40a

…ry evidences and therefore declared results deserves to be accepted. 7.14 The ld AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Paradise Holidays, IT Appeal No.445 of 2010 dt. 28.04.2010 (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Del.). In this Case it was held as under: “The question as to whether the accounts produced by the assessee were defective or not is a question of fact. The CIT(A) as well as Tribunal have found that the accounts maintained by the respondent were neither defective nor incomplete. Even the AO has not found any fault as such with the system of…

ACIT, Circle - 1, Asansol vs. Burnpur Cement Ltd., Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-I, Lower Vs. Brunpur Cement Ltd., 141, Chelidanga, Asansol-4 Cement House, Saradapally, Ashok Nagar, Asansol, District-Burdwan- 713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca 1999 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar Cit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Asansol, In Appeal No.296/Cit(A)/Asl/R-I/Asl/10-11 Dated 31.10.2011 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment Framed U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar CIT DR

Section 144

…iraj vs CIT reported in 83 ITR 484 (Ker) Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills vs CIT reported in 73 ITR 192 (P&H) ITO vs Girish M Mehta reported in 296 ITR (AT) 125 (Rajkot) CIT vs Smt Poonam Rani reported in 326 ITR 223 (Del) CIT vs Paradise Holidays reported in 325 ITR 13 (Del) Gamdiwal Dairy vs ACIT reported in 7 ITR (Tribunal) 114 CIT vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports reported in 324 ITR 95 (Del) Anoj Kumar Aggarwalla reported in 74 TTJ (Gau) 573 2.13. The ld CITA observed that the decision relied upon by the ld AO on Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 108 ITR 424 , the ld AO had found that proper accounts were not availa…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Virender Singh Kochar, New Delhi

ITA 844/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Senior DR

Section 143(2)Section 80

…0-IA (8) & (10) are not 8 ITA Nos.844 & 2081/Del./2011 applicable in this case as not even a single item has been transferred from eligible unit to ineligible unit to claim deduction u/s 80-IC and relied upon the judgments cited as CIT vs. Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 (Delhi), CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Delhi), Pandit Bros. vs. CIT 26 ITR 159 (Punjab) and Aquila Software Services Hyderabad (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 106 (Hyderabad – Trib.). 14. Undisputedly, the AO has invoked the provisions contained u/s 80-IC red with section 80-IA (8) & (10) of the Act by rejecting the books of ac…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Virender Singh Kochar, New Delhi

ITA 2081/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Senior DR

Section 143(2)Section 80

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Mastermind Publication (India) P. Ltd., Meerut

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6641/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. O.P. Supara, Sr. Adv

Section 145(3)

…the assessee had not produced some records but had other evidence to prove the correctness of books produced was held in favour of the assessee in Eagle Synthetics Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO (2011) 8 ITR (Trib) 211 (Ahd.). It was held in CIT Vs Paradise Holidays (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi), that where an assessee relies on his account book in support of the return, the returned income with reference to the books is bound to be accepted, if the accounts are found to be reliable and had been maintained according to the accounting system regularly employed by the assessee as is required by section 145 of the Act. It was further…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Varsa Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2227/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 2227/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Varsa Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-I, A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Operative Faridabad Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv2714R Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR

…8 Varsa Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. be rejected. Such a contradictory view cannot be countenanced. 18. The second ground on which books were rejected is also not sustainable. (i) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paradise Holidays reported in 325 ITR 13 (Del) has held that where the AO has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the account books maintained by the assessee 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. (ii) Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Co…

Addl CIT 14(3), Mumbai vs. Vivek Shyam Johari, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5799/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-10) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer -14(3)(4), Shri Vivek Shyam Johari, 3Rd Floor, Kadel Mansion, 608,6Th Floor, Earnest House, Vs. 65-67, Cawel Cross Lane-3, Nariman Point, Mumbqai-400002 Mumbai-400021

…tted that non-maintenance of stock register cannot be a ground for rejection of books of account: a) CIT vs. BINDALS APPARELS (2011) 332 ITR 410 (Del) b) CIT V/s JAS JACK ELEGANCE EXPORTS(2010) 324 ITR 95 (Del) c) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays (Del.) (HC) [2010], 325 ITR 13 (Del.), d) Income-Tax Officer vs Rajni Kant Dave (1996) 58 ITD 510 All. 7. We notice that all the case laws relied upon by the assessee are not related to the diamond trade. It is a known fact that the price of the 4 CO No.99/M/14 diamond would depend upon various criteria, of which size and quality are more relevant. No transaction could take pl…