How many judgments cite CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani?

68 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani (326 ITR 223), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 145(3), Section 143(2), Section 145, Section 234A.

CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani

326 ITR 223High Court2010#1679 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani authority for?

The books of account cannot be rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without the Assessing Officer pointing out specific material defects. A mere fall in the Gross Profit rate or the non-maintenance of a stock register, by itself, is not a sufficient ground for rejection if complete and quantitative details are furnished.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani · 326 ITR 223 · Section 145(3) · rejection of books of account · material defects · non-maintenance of stock register · fall in Gross Profit rate · quantitative details · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

192 Taxmann 167

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 143(2)Section 145 Section 234A Section 234B Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of account section 145(3)section 145 section 44ab section 133(6)scrutiny assessment section 271(1)(c)previous year business section 11 section 14 section 142(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani

JAYA CHANDRA,BAGUIHATI vs. ITO, WARD 43(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jaya Chandra Bg-16, Krishnapur Hanapara, Ito, Ward 43(1), Krishnapur, S.O. Baguiati, North 3 Government Place, East, Vs. 24 Paraganas, Kolkata-700102, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acnpc7347P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)

…liers. In our opinion the rejection of books of account without pointing out any defect is bad in law and can not be sustained. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Delhi) and by the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Om Overseas (2009) 315 ITR 185(P&H). In our considered opinion the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment order is wrong and can not be sustained. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue and direct the ld. AO to Jaya Chandra; A.Y…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…The assessing officer has not rejected the books of accounts. Accordingly, the disallowance/addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted. • The Hon’ble jurisdiction Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. CIT vs. CIT vs. CIT vs. Poonam Poonam Rani (2010) 5 Taxmann.com 76 Poonam Poonam Rani (2010) 5 Taxmann.com 76 Rani (2010) 5 Taxmann.com 76 has held that in the absence Rani (2010) 5 Taxmann.com 76 of any material pointing towards falsehood of accounts books, addition of gross profit and rejection of books of accounts cannot be made. In the case of the assessee before your honour, the facts are even stronger…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…crepancy in the books of accounts. The assessing officer has not rejected the books of accounts. Accordingly, the disallowance/addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted. The Hon'ble jurisdiction Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Poonam Rani (2010) 5 Taxmann.com 76 has held that in the absence of any material pointing towards falsehood of accounts books, addition of gross profit and rejection of books of accounts cannot be made. In the case of the assessee before your honour, the facts are even stronger as the assessing officer has not even rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. • The Hon'ble…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…tion is not tenable. That appellant company in this regard seeks to place reliance upon following judicial pronouncements: i) 325 ITR 13 (Del) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays ii) ITA No. 999/2010 (Del) dated 03.08.2010 CIT vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. iii) 326 ITR 223 (Del) CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani iv) 324 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports v) ITA No. 796/2011 (Del) dated 3.05.2012 CIT vs. Winner Constructions (P) Ltd.) vi) 372 ITR 381 (Del) CIT v. Zohra Emporium VI) vii) 315 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas viii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. ix) 64 DTR 409 (Jai…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 797/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito Ward 1(3) Shree Balaji Processors बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 Tajpur Road, Opp. Central Jail Vs. Ludhiana - 141010 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actfs-8428-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 23-12-2018 Rejecting Books Of The Assessee & Assessing Business Profit Of Rs.12.81 Crores. The Ld. Cit(A) Reversed The Action Of Ld. Ao Against Which The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us With Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. That The Cit(A), Ludhiana Has Erred In Law, In Deleting Addition Of Rs.12,01,85,191/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…cy in the account books maintained by the appellant 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. b. CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223 (Del HC) Appellant having furnished complete details, including quantitative details in respect of purchase of raw material, manufacture of copper wire and sale of finished products and the AO having not pointed out any particular defect or discrepancy in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant, fall in GP rate alone could not by itself…

ITO WARD 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RADIANT DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3660/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.227, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road Churchgate, Mumbai : 400 020 …………. Appellant Radiant Diamond Private Limited Vs 804, Apranay Vidya Off. Borsapad, Kandivali (West), Mumbai - 400067 [PAN:AAECR1595E] …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department : Shri Aditya Rai For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Vijay Joshi Date Conclusion of hearing : 15.09.2025 Pronouncement of order : 29.09.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary,…

ARIHANT ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 590/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ing material defects in the same, for which he placed reliance on the following judgements : a. CIT v. Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd. - [2013] 35 taxmann.com 533 (Guj.); b. Ashoke Refractories v. CIT - [2005] 199 CTR 115 (Cal.); c. CIT v. Poonam Rani - [2010] 326 ITR 223 (Delhi); a. ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewellers - [2021] 189 TTP 608 (Vishakhapatnam) 6.1 With regard to the addition of Rs.43,88,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer considered cash sales of Rs. 43,88,500/- being the source of cash deposits during demonetization period as unexplained cash c…

SINGAL AND SONS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 4 , HISAR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 264/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansingal & Sons Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 4, Behind Sbi Main Branch, Hisar. Delhi Road, Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccs0362C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 10.07.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) Dated 06.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.5,90,940/- On 29.10.2017 For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Accordingly, Notices

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ccounts maintained by the assessee were incorrect or incomplete or method of accounting adopted by him was such that true profits of the assessee cannot be deduced therefrom.” The Hon'ble jurisdiction Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Poonam Rani (2010) 5 Taxmann.com 76 has held that in the absence of any material pointing towards falsehood of accounts books, addition of gross profit and rejection of books of accounts cannot be made. Comparative gross profit margin/net profit margin for last three years are as under:- Comparative Chart of GPINP for 3 years Assessment Year 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 Work done 7…

DRA S AND P JOINT VENTURE,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 278/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2018-19 Dra S & P Joint Venture The Dcit, 401, The Grand Mall, Sm Road Vs Cir. Gandhinagar Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aabad 8917 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.L. Poddar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/06/2025

For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 DRA S and P Joint Venture The DCIT, 401, The Grand Mall, SM Road Vs Cir. Gandhinagar Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015. PAN : AABAD 8917 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee by Shri S.L. Poddar, AR Revenue by : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date o…

SUSHIL KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 22(2), DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3482/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sushil Kumar Vs. Acit Shreeram Overseas Circle-22(2) 5520, Bastiharpull C. R. Building, Singh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aalpk5068M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amit Goel, Adv & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac)’ For Short)- Delhi Dated 10/07/2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,50,99,530/- Made By The Ao 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)

…it may give rise to a legitimate inference that all is not well with the books and the same cannot be relied upon to assess the income, profits or gains of an assessee.” 11. The Hon'ble jurisdiction Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Poonam Rani (2010) 5 Taxmann.com 76 held that in the absence of any material pointing towards falsehood of accounts books, addition of gross profit and rejection of books of accounts cannot be made. 12. The Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High court in the case of CIT v Paradise Holidays(2010) 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) held as under:- 8 Sushil Kumar Vs. ACIT 6. The Assessing Office…

SHAIL Y PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (PREV. CIRCLE 1(3)), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 714/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(2)Section 145Section 234A

…non-maintenance of stock register cannot be the ground for rejection of the Books of Account under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: - – Jaytick Intermediates P. Ltd. – 242 Taxman 319 (Guj) – CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rai – 326 ITR 223 (Delhi) – Mansi Prints Pvt. Ltd. – ITA Nos.498 & 872/Ahd/2009 5.3 The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer rejected books of account broadly on the count that there was some discrepancy in the earlier submissions made by the assessee vis-a-vis total traded items (200 v. 350 items). However, the Assessing Officer did not verify qua…

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 660/LKW/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 40A(2)

…R. for the assessee supported the order of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(D. R.) also supported the additions, claiming applicability of CUP (Comparable uncontrolled Price). The Learned Learned A. R. for the assessee placed reliance on CIT Vs Poonam Rani 5 Taxmann.com 76 (Del), CIT Vs. Mohd Umer 101 ITR 525 (Patna) for the contention that low profit is not by itself a valid criterion for not accepting profit shown in books of account. He supported this contention with the help of ITAT order also in the case of DCIT Vs Gajanan Traders 12 SOT 36 (Bang.) and orders of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Bony Rub…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. A1-DUA FOOD PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1007/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekacit, Central Circle, Vs. Al-Dua Food Processing Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. 16, Fire Brigade Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aagca0396J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’] Dated 25.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,76,98,220/- On 30.11.2017. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CITDR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, Central Circle, vs. Al-Dua Food Processing Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. 16, Fire Brigade Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAGCA0396J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Deepak Singh, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Javed Akhtar, CITDR Date of Hearing : 25.09.2024 Date of Order : 06.12.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [hereinaft…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

ITA 499/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…icient details of the stock have been filed by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings and moreover, the said details have been accepted by the Ld. AO. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments:- a). CIT vs. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del HC) b). CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Del HC) c) Ashoke Refractories (P) Ltd. v. CIT 279 ITR 457 (Cal HC) d) Neeraj jain vs. ITO 33 CCH 436 (Del Trib) e). Teletronics Dealing Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Additional CIT 31 CCH 037 (Mum Trib) f). ACIT vs. Ramesh Kumar Siwach in ITA No. 3269/Der/2013 499-Chd-2023 & C.O.09-Chd-2024 Sh…

SH. JAMBU KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 301/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

…account were not found to be incorrect in any manner, there could not have been any other result except what has been shown by the assessee in the books of accounts. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.  CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223/ 41 DTR 194 (Del.) (HC) If the stock register was not maintained by the assessee that may put the Assessing Officer on guard against the falsity of the return made by the assessee and persuade him to carefully scrutinize the account books of the assessee. But the absence of 6 SHRI JAMBU KUMAR JAIN VS ITO, WARD 2(2), KOTA one register alone did n…

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

…oks of account, the following decisions are eloquent : i) Pandit Bros vs. CIT 26 ITR 159 ( P&H) ii) CIT vs Maharaja Shree Umed Mills Ltd 192 ITR 563 (Raj) iii) CIT vs. K.S.Bhatia 125 Taxman 454 (P&H) ITA 326/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 37 iv) CIT Vs Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 18.5 On merits also, the stand taken by the assessee for the fall in GP during the year is not a totally unpalatable stand. The assessee has maintained, as noted by both the authorities below, that the major reason for fall in GP was a substantial increase in turnover by almost 50% from Rs. 60.71 Cr during the earlier year to Rs.90.74 Cr durin…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHIV NARESH SPORTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 5538/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri S. B. Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, [CIT] - D. R

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…h that the true profits of the business could not be deduced there from. Therefore, the basic preconditions of section 145(3) are not satisfied. • Hence, according to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223 (Del), it is clearly evident and therefore, held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of the accounts of the assessee. Accordingly, there would be no case for estimation. • CIT(A) thus reversed the findings of rejection of books, and the estimation of income. 29. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in his order has…

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4