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)

Manoj Kumar Khubani, Barmer vs. Dc Cen Cir 2 Jdh, Jodhpur

In the result, stands ALLOWED

ITA 376/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…ount of unaccounted cash sales.We are also conscious to the fact that the assessee during the survey proceedings has admitted the fact that the impugned amount represents its income. The High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj) has held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire undisclosed sales could not be added as income of the assessee but the addition could be made only to the extent of estimated profits embedded in sales for which the net profit rate was adopted and hence no referrable question of law arises. 1.20 It would not be out of pla…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. M/S. S.S. Infra, Vadodara

In the result, for the detailed reasons recorded above while adjudicating each of the grounds, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in these appeals for the assessment years 2015–16 to 2018–19 sta...

ITA 158/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.78, 79 & 80/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-16 & Asstt.Year 2018-19 Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 M/S.S.S. Infra Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.579 Shree Hari Duplex, Mouje Bil Vadodaa 391 410. Pan : Acnfs 6514 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…correctly appreciated the legal and factual matrix, particularly the requirement of year-specific seized material under section 153C, and had appropriately applied the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of President Industries (258 ITR 654), restricting the addition to the embedded profit on the actual unaccounted receipts discovered for Asst.Year IT(SS)A No.78 to 80 and ITA No.158/Ahd/2021 17 2015–16. Therefore, the AR pleaded that the findings of the CIT(A) deserved to be upheld in toto. 14. After considering the detailed material on record, the well‑reasoned impugned assessmen…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shanta Techno Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 155/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 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 8 DCIT-1(1) vs. Shanta Techno Private Limited proceeds should be taxed instead of add…

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Manbhari Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

ITA 4034/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4034/Mum/2024 (Assessment year: 2016-17) DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.649, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 VS Manbhari Constructions Private Limited, 2121, Vasant Pride, Thakur Complex, Kandivali-400 101 PAN : AAECM4919K APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. No.289/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.4034/Mum/2024) (Assessment year: 2016-17) Manbhari Constructions Private Limited, 2121, Vasant Pride, Thakur Complex, Kandivali-400 101 VS DCIT 4(3)(1)…

Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3), Surat

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

ITA 909/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.909/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Vs. Acit, 317, Regal Diamond Centre, Tata Circle – 3(3), Road No. 1 &2 Opera House, Surat Mumbai - 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adlpp8388A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…that when sales are recorded, the entire purchase cannot be added and only the profit component embedded in the purchases can be disallowed. For this, the appellant relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. President Industries, 258 ITR 654 (Guj.), CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd., 35 ITR 290 (Guj.), Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and various decisions of the ITAT, Surat. The CIT(A) observed that though the purchases are recorded in the books of account, the appellant did not bring anything on record to prove that the purchases actually exist. The entries are standing in the books wi…