What is CIT v. President Industries authority for?

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

How many judgments cite CIT v. President Industries?

471 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. President Industries come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 132, Section 148, Section 153A, Section 115BBE.

CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654)

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1863/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…ort price revision. 24. Further, we find the assessee contended that even assuming any suppressed turnover, only the gross profit element thereon could be added as income, supporting the same, relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654) of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The AO rejected the assessee's explanation and concluded that only sales were suppressed, while purchases and all other components of the trading account remained recorded and unaltered in the system. Therefore, the AO held that the entire difference in sales represented undisclosed income under section 69A, and…

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1858/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…rt price revision. 24. Further, we find the assessee contended that even assuming any suppressed turnover, only the gross profit element thereon could be added as income, supporting the same, relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654) of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. The AO rejected the assessee's explanation and concluded that only sales were suppressed, while purchases and all other components of the trading account remained recorded and unaltered in the system. Therefore, the AO held that the entire difference in sales represented undisclosed income under section 69A, and…

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1857/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…ort price revision. 24. Further, we find the assessee contended that even assuming any suppressed turnover, only the gross profit element thereon could be added as income, supporting the same, relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654) of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The AO rejected the assessee's explanation and concluded that only sales were suppressed, while purchases and all other components of the trading account remained recorded and unaltered in the system. Therefore, the AO held that the entire difference in sales represented undisclosed income under section 69A, and…

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1856/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…rt price revision. 24. Further, we find the assessee contended that even assuming any suppressed turnover, only the gross profit element thereon could be added as income, supporting the same, relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654) of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. The AO rejected the assessee's explanation and concluded that only sales were suppressed, while purchases and all other components of the trading account remained recorded and unaltered in the system. Therefore, the AO held that the entire difference in sales represented undisclosed income under section 69A, and…

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1855/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…rt price revision. 24. Further, we find the assessee contended that even assuming any suppressed turnover, only the gross profit element thereon could be added as income, supporting the same, relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654) of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. The AO rejected the assessee's explanation and concluded that only sales were suppressed, while purchases and all other components of the trading account remained recorded and unaltered in the system. Therefore, the AO held that the entire difference in sales represented undisclosed income under section 69A, and…

Ashoka Industrial Fastners, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle 3, Lduhiana

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1141/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

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

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 147

…Without prejudice, the assessee submits that even if the figures are treated as sales, only net profit-and not gross profit-can be taxed, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of CIT v. President Industries as reported in [2002] 258 ITR 654 and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar as reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610. As the declared NP rate is 1.35%, the assessee prays that the same be applied and the consequential relief granted. 7. Further, it is significant that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account under s…

Ashoka Industrial Fastners, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1140/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 147

…Without prejudice, the assessee submits that even if the figures are treated as sales, only net profit-and not gross profit-can be taxed, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of CIT v. President Industries as reported in [2002] 258 ITR 654 and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar as reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610. As the declared NP rate is 1.35%, the assessee prays that the same be applied and the consequential relief granted. 7. Further, it is significant that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account under s…

Ashoka Industrial Fastners, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Cirlce-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 147

…Without prejudice, the assessee submits that even if the figures are treated as sales, only net profit-and not gross profit-can be taxed, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of CIT v. President Industries as reported in [2002] 258 ITR 654 and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar as reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610. As the declared NP rate is 1.35%, the assessee prays that the same be applied and the consequential relief granted. 7. Further, it is significant that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account under s…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Gaurang Alloys and Iron Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1257/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountantmember & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata…....………..............................……….……Appellant Vs. Gaurang Alloys & Iron Ltd...………….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent 402A, Mangalam, 24/26, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kol-1.. [Pan: Aaccg1485A] Appearances By: Dr. Anup Biswas, Cit-Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :December 23, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 25.02.2025Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’)For The Ay 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Treating The Undisclosed Cash Sales/Receipts Of Rs.7,54,07,283/- As Business Transaction & Directing The Ao To Apply G.P Rate @ 6.5% To Determine The Profit From The Undisclosed Sales/Receipts.

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…declared by theassessee on such unaccounted turnover and decide as per law. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions.” 6.2.6. In the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. President Industries, reported in(2002) 258 ITR 654’ the Hon’ble High Court, Gujrat had taken a similar view. In the saidcase, during the course of survey conducted on the premises of the assessee, from theexcise records found, an inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer that sales accountingto Rs. 29 lakhs and odd had not been disclosed in the books of account. The AssessingOfficer made addit…

Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…eclared by the assessee on such unaccounted turnover and decide as per law. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions." 8.2.7.In the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. President Industries, reported in (2002) 258 ITR 654' the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat had taken a similar view. In the said case, during the course of survey conducted on the premises of the assessee, from the excise records found, an inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer that sales accounting to Rs. 29 lakhs and odd had not been disclosed in the books of account. The Assessing Officer made…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…eclared by the assessee on such unaccounted turnover and decide as per law. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions." 8.2.7.In the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. President Industries, reported in (2002) 258 ITR 654' the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat had taken a similar view. In the said case, during the course of survey conducted on the premises of the assessee, from the excise records found, an inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer that sales accounting to Rs. 29 lakhs and odd had not been disclosed in the books of account. The Assessing Officer made…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarawal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…eclared by the assessee on such unaccounted turnover and decide as per law. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions." 8.2.7.In the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. President Industries, reported in (2002) 258 ITR 654' the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat had taken a similar view. In the said case, during the course of survey conducted on the premises of the assessee, from the excise records found, an inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer that sales accounting to Rs. 29 lakhs and odd had not been disclosed in the books of account. The Assessing Officer made…

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…eclared by the assessee on such unaccounted turnover and decide as per law. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions." 8.2.7.In the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. President Industries, reported in (2002) 258 ITR 654' the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat had taken a similar view. In the said case, during the course of survey conducted on the premises of the assessee, from the excise records found, an inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer that sales accounting to Rs. 29 lakhs and odd had not been disclosed in the books of account. The Assessing Officer made…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…eclared by the assessee on such unaccounted turnover and decide as per law. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions." 8.2.7.In the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. President Industries, reported in (2002) 258 ITR 654' the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat had taken a similar view. In the said case, during the course of survey conducted on the premises of the assessee, from the excise records found, an inference was drawn by the Assessing Officer that sales accounting to Rs. 29 lakhs and odd had not been disclosed in the books of account. The Assessing Officer made…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. S S Pulses Manufacturing Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2384/DEL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…stances in the present case. Moreover, the question whether entire purchases should be disallowed or addition should be restricted to the profits embodied on sale proceeds was answered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. President Industries (258 ITR 654) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (263 ITR 610). 5.8 Considering the above decisions, and a catena of recent decisions passed by the Tribunals relying on the aforesaid decisions, only the profits embodied on sale proceeds should be taxed instead of addition on account of entire purchases. Looking to…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Construction, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4245/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Avinash Construction, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Abil House 2, Old Cgo Annexe Building, Vs. Ganesh Khind Road, M.K.Road, Range Hill Corner, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411007. Pan : Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69C

…books of accounts. In support of the facts, the appellant submitted certain decisions of judicial authorities in the following cases: i. DCIT v. Panna Corporation [74 DTR 89 (Guj)): ii. CIT v. Babulal Daga [387 ITR 114 (Guj) iii. CIT v. President Industries [258 ITR 654 (Guj) iv. Pr. CIT Vs Mehul T. Desai (2019 TaxPub(DT) 5219 (Guj-HC) v. Greenfield Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT IT (SS) A No. 289 292/Ahmedabad/2018] vi. Dhanvarsha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune) vii. Parthivi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA Nos. 93- 99/Raipur/2019] viii. DCIT v. GSNR Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd. ((2021…

Meenaxi Gems Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 613/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Memon, 95 taxmann.com 20 (Guj.), (iii) Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Tax appeal No. 200/2003 (Guj.), (iv) CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth, 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj.), (v) CIT Vs. Bholanath Poy Fab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and (vi) CIT Vs. President Industries, 258 ITR 654 (Guj.). 8. The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and requested to uphold the order of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. We also deliberated various case laws relied upon by the parties. At the outset of heari…

Meenaxi Gems Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 612/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Memon, 95 taxmann.com 20 (Guj.), (iii) Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Tax appeal No. 200/2003 (Guj.), (iv) CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth, 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj.), (v) CIT Vs. Bholanath Poy Fab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and (vi) CIT Vs. President Industries, 258 ITR 654 (Guj.). 8. The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and requested to uphold the order of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. We also deliberated various case laws relied upon by the parties. At the outset of heari…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Pawan Kumar Jhalani, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 966/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 4

…ellant had also relied upon various case laws on this issue. Further there are many other cases where in case of unrecorded turnover/ sales only GP addition has been sustained. For this reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Guj.) (HC) The amount of sales could not represent the income of the assessee who had not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods; only the realization of the excess over the cost incurred could form part of theprofit included in the consideration for the sales, Since there was no finding to…

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2274/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 131Section 132

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2270 to 2274/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2018-19 Arvind Nandagopal, No.6, 6th Street, Rutland Gate, Nungambakkam, Greams Road S.O., Chennai-600 006. v. The ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai. [PAN: AAFPA 6259 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by सुनवाईक…

CIT v. President Industries

What is CIT v. President Industries authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. President Industries

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Gunasekaran Mannar, Villupuram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Ashoka Industrial Fastners, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle 3, Lduhiana

Ashoka Industrial Fastners, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

Ashoka Industrial Fastners, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Central Cirlce-3, Ludhiana

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Gaurang Alloys and Iron Limited, Kolkata

Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarawal, Kolkata

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. S S Pulses Manufacturing Pvt Ltd, Delhi

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Construction, Pune

Meenaxi Gems Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1)(4), Surat

Meenaxi Gems Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(1)(4), Surat

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Pawan Kumar Jhalani, Jaipur

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai