CIT v. Relaxo Footwear

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…f law which requires to be referred to this Court arise out of Tribunal's appellate order. The order of Tribunal under s. 256(1) is not erroneous in reaching such conclusion. 13.1 Another decision of Rajastha High Court in CIT v. Laxmi Engg. Industries [2009] 308 ITR 279 wherein it has been observed as under:— After a review of all the judgments cited at the bar, we are of the view, that of course, in Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co.'s case it has been observed, that the alleged practice showing inflated figure to the bank is not recognised in commercial circles or by court, and the Tribunal is not expected to t…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

…hat excess stock is income from undisclosed sources. However, in the present case assessee has furnished the explanation. Otherwise also, on excess stock declared to the bank, the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Relaxo Footwear (2003) 259 ITR 744 and CIT Vs. Laxmi Engg. Industries (2009) 308 ITR 279 are in favour of the assessee. Hence the addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified. 2. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that the assessee in the statement dt. 23.09.2017 recorded in search has offered income of Rs.1.20 crores towards undisclosed income from M/s Raja Bricks (P…

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

…hat excess stock is income from undisclosed sources. However, in the present case assessee has furnished the explanation. Otherwise also, on excess stock declared to the bank, the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Relaxo Footwear (2003) 259 ITR 744 and CIT Vs. Laxmi Engg. Industries (2009) 308 ITR 279 are in favour of the assessee. Hence the addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified. 2. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that the assessee in the statement dt. 23.09.2017 recorded in search has offered income of Rs.1.20 crores towards undisclosed income from M/s Raja Bricks (P…

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

…excess stock is\nincome from undisclosed sources. However, in the present case\nassessee has furnished the explanation. Otherwise also, on excess\nstock declared to the bank, the decision of jurisdictional High Court in\ncase of CIT Vs. Relaxo Footwear (2003) 259 ITR 744 and CIT Vs. Laxmi\nEngg. Industries (2009) 308 ITR 279 are in favour of the assessee.\nHence the addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified.\n2. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that the assessee in\nthe statement dt. 23.09.2017 recorded in search has offered income of\nRs.1.20 crores towards undisclosed income from M/s Raja Brick…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

…quires that Ld. AO has to income” establish understatement of purchase price first before invoking Section 69B of the Act. • Without prejudice, reliance is placed on jurisdictional High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Laxmi Engineering Industries (2009) 308 ITR 279 (Raj), which held that merely on the basis of stock statement submitted to bank, addition u/s 69B is not justified. • Hence the relied upon case law is distinguishable. • GG. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Deccan The case relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) is not Tobacco Company [2022] 137 taxmann.com 470 applicable to the facts and circumst…