CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill

326 ITR 410High Court2010#1980 most cited

What is CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill authority for?

When undisclosed sales or receipts are detected, income tax addition should be limited to the estimated profit embedded in such unaccounted transactions, rather than the entire gross value of the sales. This approach implicitly accounts for the cost component of goods sold and prevents distorted profit ratios.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Samir Synthetics Mill · 326 ITR 410 · unaccounted sales taxability · undisclosed receipts addition · profit on unaccounted sales · Section 153A · Section 115BBE · Section 69C · estimated profit · gross turnover addition · unexplained income · Gujarat High Court

Also reported as

40 Taxmann 494

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132Section 115BBESection 69CSection 37(1)Section 68Section 143(3)Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 155bbeillegal paymenton money receiptsection 65b(4)section 256explanation to section 37circular tradingsection 114section 131(1a)survey under section 133asection 155dumb documents

Judgments citing CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1364/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…ion value, as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of (i) CIT Vs. President Industries reported in (2002) 258 ITR 654, (ii) CIT Vs. Gurubachan Singh reported in (2008) 302 ITR 63 (Guj.) and (iii) CIT Vs. Samir Synthetics Mill reported in (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj.). 7. Considering the above judicial precedents, we deem it fit that a gross profit rate of 9% is reasonable addition in the above case since expenses are already allowed in the Profit and Loss account and direct the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to make the re- assessment accordingly by giving opportunity of hearing to the…

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1363/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2026AY 2015-16
Section 115Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…ion value, as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of (i) CIT Vs. President Industries reported in (2002) 258 ITR 654, (ii) CIT Vs. Gurubachan Singh reported in (2008) 302 ITR 63 (Guj.) and (iii) CIT Vs. Samir Synthetics Mill reported in (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj.). 7. Considering the above judicial precedents, we deem it fit that a gross profit rate of 9% is reasonable addition in the above case since expenses are already allowed in the Profit and Loss account and direct the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to make the re- assessment accordingly by giving opportunity of hearing to the…

SHRI BHUMIKA STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1362/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…ion value, as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of (i) CIT Vs. President Industries reported in (2002) 258 ITR 654, (ii) CIT Vs. Gurubachan Singh reported in (2008) 302 ITR 63 (Guj.) and (iii) CIT Vs. Samir Synthetics Mill reported in (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj.). 7. Considering the above judicial precedents, we deem it fit that a gross profit rate of 9% is reasonable addition in the above case since expenses are already allowed in the Profit and Loss account and direct the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to make the re- assessment accordingly by giving opportunity of hearing to the…

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1860/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

…258 ITR 654 (Guj.), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the entire sales cannot represent income of the assessee; only the profit element embedded in such sales can be brought to tax. • The same view was reiterated in CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mills (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj.), holding that even if unaccounted sales are found, the taxable income should be computed by applying the gross profit rate and not by assessing the full value of sales. • In Pr. CIT v. Rameshwar Textiles Ltd. (TA Nos. 527–528/2015, Gujarat High Court), it was reaffirmed that the profit from unaccounted turnover alone can be taxed. • The pr…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

…Whether, therefore Commissioner (Appeals) rightly reduced excess sales to 20 per cent of turnover by applying gross profit rate of 35 per cent - Held yes (Paras 8 & 9] [in favour of assessee) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Samir Synthetics Mill [2010] 326 ITR 410 (Gujarat) (HC): "Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Assessment Addition to income-Where assessee could not even be able to reconcile production, sales and closing stock although specific opportunity was provided by Assessing Officer, addition was justified on account of suppression of sale consideration but only to the extent of profit [in…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

…Whether, therefore Commissioner (Appeals) rightly reduced excess sales to 20 per cent of turnover by applying gross profit rate of 35 per cent - Held yes (Paras 8 & 9] [in favour of assessee) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Samir Synthetics Mill [2010] 326 ITR 410 (Gujarat) (HC): "Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Assessment Addition to income-Where assessee could not even be able to reconcile production, sales and closing stock although specific opportunity was provided by Assessing Officer, addition was justified on account of suppression of sale consideration but only to the extent of profit [in…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

…Whether, therefore Commissioner (Appeals) rightly reduced excess sales to 20 per cent of turnover by applying gross profit rate of 35 per cent - Held yes (Paras 8 & 9] [in favour of assessee) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Samir Synthetics Mill [2010] 326 ITR 410 (Gujarat) (HC): "Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Assessment Addition to income-Where assessee could not even be able to reconcile production, sales and closing stock although specific opportunity was provided by Assessing Officer, addition was justified on account of suppression of sale consideration but only to the extent of profit [in…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

…Whether, therefore Commissioner (Appeals) rightly reduced excess sales to 20 per cent of turnover by applying gross profit rate of 35 per cent - Held yes (Paras 8 & 9] [in favour of assessee) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Samir Synthetics Mill [2010] 326 ITR 410 (Gujarat) (HC): "Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Assessment Addition to income-Where assessee could not even be able to reconcile production, sales and closing stock although specific opportunity was provided by Assessing Officer, addition was justified on account of suppression of sale consideration but only to the extent of profit [in…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, 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

…hegoods which have been sold has been made by the assessee and that has also not beendisclosed, such addition could not be sustained.” 6.2.7. Further I rely on the decision in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. SamirSynthetics Mill, reported in (2010) 326 ITR 410’, wherein the Hon’ble Gujrat High Courtconfirmed the view of the Tribunal accepting only the profit of unaccounted sale for thepurpose of collecting tax. 6.2.8. In the case of ‘PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. Rameshwar Textile MillsLtd’ ITA 527 & 528 of 2015’, the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court had held the following: 4 Gaurang Alloys and Iron Lt…

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

…goods which have been sold has been made by the assessee and that has also not been disclosed, such addition could not be sustained." 8.2.8. Further I rely on the decision in the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samir Synthetics Mill, reported in (2010) 326 ITR 410', wherein the Hon'ble Gujrat Amar Kumar Agarwal; A.Ys. 17-18 to 21-22 High Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal accepting only the profit of unaccounted sale for the 8.2.9. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as well as the discussions held above, it is the profit should be brought to tax not the entire cash receipts, therefore,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, 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

…goods which have been sold has been made by the assessee and that has also not been disclosed, such addition could not be sustained." 8.2.8. Further I rely on the decision in the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samir Synthetics Mill, reported in (2010) 326 ITR 410', wherein the Hon'ble Gujrat Amar Kumar Agarwal; A.Ys. 17-18 to 21-22 High Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal accepting only the profit of unaccounted sale for the 8.2.9. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as well as the discussions held above, it is the profit should be brought to tax not the entire cash receipts, therefore,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, 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

…goods which have been sold has been made by the assessee and that has also not been disclosed, such addition could not be sustained." 8.2.8. Further I rely on the decision in the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samir Synthetics Mill, reported in (2010) 326 ITR 410', wherein the Hon'ble Gujrat Amar Kumar Agarwal; A.Ys. 17-18 to 21-22 High Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal accepting only the profit of unaccounted sale for the 8.2.9. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as well as the discussions held above, it is the profit should be brought to tax not the entire cash receipts, therefore,…

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, 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

…goods which have been sold has been made by the assessee and that has also not been disclosed, such addition could not be sustained." 8.2.8. Further I rely on the decision in the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samir Synthetics Mill, reported in (2010) 326 ITR 410', wherein the Hon'ble Gujrat Amar Kumar Agarwal; A.Ys. 17-18 to 21-22 High Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal accepting only the profit of unaccounted sale for the 8.2.9. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as well as the discussions held above, it is the profit should be brought to tax not the entire cash receipts, therefore,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, 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

…goods which have been sold has been made by the assessee and that has also not been disclosed, such addition could not be sustained." 8.2.8. Further I rely on the decision in the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Samir Synthetics Mill, reported in (2010) 326 ITR 410', wherein the Hon'ble Gujrat Amar Kumar Agarwal; A.Ys. 17-18 to 21-22 High Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal accepting only the profit of unaccounted sale for the 8.2.9. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as well as the discussions held above, it is the profit should be brought to tax not the entire cash receipts, therefore,…

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

…goods sold outside the books of account were acquired from unexplained sources. The value of entire sale outside the books cannot be added. Only profit margin may be added. This view was re-confirmed in its later decision in the case of Samir Synthetics Mill, 326 ITR 410 (Guj.). Therefore, the addition maintained by the authorities below was highly unjustified. The ld.CIT(A) though cited the alleged comparable cases of M/s. Kishore Zarda Factory and Sugandhi Snuff King, but admitted in the impugned order that the cited cases of comparison may or may not have the same or similar process of manufacturing. They may…

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 379/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

…goods sold outside the books of account were acquired from unexplained sources. The value of entire sale outside the books cannot be added. Only profit margin may be added. This view was re-confirmed in its later decision in the case of Samir Synthetics Mill, 326 ITR 410 (Guj.). Therefore, the addition maintained by the authorities below was highly unjustified. The ld.CIT(A) though cited the alleged comparable cases of M/s. Kishore Zarda Factory and Sugandhi Snuff King, but admitted in the impugned order that the cited cases of comparison may or may not have the same or similar process of manufacturing. They may…

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

…the element of profit embedded in such business receipts which can be added to the total income of the assessee. The appellant draws support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujurat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill reported in 326 ITR 410. The appellant places further reliance on the judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja reported in 302 ITR 63. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: 6. Hence, in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflect…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP ORGANISERS PVT LTD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

ITA 482/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…T vs. President Industries – (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.); * CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar – (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP); * CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh – (2008) 302 ITR 63 (Guj); * Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT – (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP); * CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill – (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj); * DCIT v. Panna Corporation – Tax Appeal 323 of 2000 (Guj); * Chetan C. Patel v. ACIT – IT(SS)A 522/Ahd/2011 and others; * CIT v. Jay Builders – (2013) 33 taxmann.com 62 (Guj); * Greenfield Reality P. Ltd.– IT(SS)A 289/Ahd/2018 & others; 6.2. The next logical step is to determine the quantum of income element embedded in such “unaccounted…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP VENTURE LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

ITA 481/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…T vs. President Industries – (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.); * CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar – (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP); * CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh – (2008) 302 ITR 63 (Guj); * Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT – (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP); * CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill – (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj); * DCIT v. Panna Corporation – Tax Appeal 323 of 2000 (Guj); * Chetan C. Patel v. ACIT – IT(SS)A 522/Ahd/2011 and others; * CIT v. Jay Builders – (2013) 33 taxmann.com 62 (Guj); * Greenfield Reality P. Ltd.– IT(SS)A 289/Ahd/2018 & others; 6.2. The next logical step is to determine the quantum of income element embedded in such “unaccounted…

SANKALP VENTURE LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A No

ITA 436/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…T vs. President Industries – (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.); * CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar – (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP); * CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh – (2008) 302 ITR 63 (Guj); * Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT – (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP); * CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill – (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj); * DCIT v. Panna Corporation – Tax Appeal 323 of 2000 (Guj); * Chetan C. Patel v. ACIT – IT(SS)A 522/Ahd/2011 and others; * CIT v. Jay Builders – (2013) 33 taxmann.com 62 (Guj); * Greenfield Reality P. Ltd.– IT(SS)A 289/Ahd/2018 & others; 6.2. The next logical step is to determine the quantum of income element embedded in such “unaccounted…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. Samir Synthetics Mill (326 ITR 410) — Cited in 58 Judgments | BharatTax