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#1678 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 366,339 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

M/S Ginni Filaments Ltd., Mathura vs. A.C.I.T., Range-3, Mathura

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

ITA 173/AGR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 234BSection 44A

…could be made on account of alleged defects pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions : 8 (i). CIT vs. UP State Food and Essential Commodities (2014) 221 Taxman 16 (Allahabad HC) (ii). CIT v. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223 (Delhi HC) (iii). DCIT v. Subhash Chand Agrawal (2013) 58 SOT 122 (Alld. Tribunal) 7. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that for the assessment year 2012-13, the ld. CIT(A) in the identical facts, despite decline in GP, had accepted the GP rate of 8.41%. He has drawn our attention to the table reproduced in paragraph 6.7 of the written sub…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. S S Brothers, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5902/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…which is one of the main reason for the Assessing Officer to make the addition, is not justified and therefore the addition has been deleted by the CIT(A). Apart from the judgements, we wish to rely upon a judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as reported in 326 ITR 223 in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the fall in gross profit ratio in the absence of any cogent reasons cannot be itself to be a ground to held that proper income of the assessee cannot be deduced from the accounts maintained by the assessee. Hon’ble High Court at Page 225 held as under:- “If the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Dhruv Buildcon Designers Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, we donot see any infirmity in the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the same is hereby confirmed

ITA 1270/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131Section 133ASection 148

…stock register made detection of understatement of 5 The DCIT, Kota vs. M/s Dhruv Buildcon Designers Pvt. Ltd., Kota income impossible and in support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223 (Del.). It was further submitted that merely because assessee has admitted income during survey, proper consideration as to the merits of the addition is not ruled out. Where the assessee had surrendered some income during survey on allegation of certain discrepancies, but later retracted from the same explaining the discrepancies, there could be…

Kashmir Steel Industries, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 201/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Kashmir Steel Industries, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sidco Industrial Complex, Bari Tax, Circle-1, Brahmana, Jammu Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfk4948A Assessee By : Sh. Vasu Gupta, Ca & Sh. R. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana.

For Appellant: Sh. Vasu Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

…at if the profits shown by the assessee in his return are not accepted, it is for the taxing authorities to prove that the assessee made more profits.” 9. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223 wherein it has been held as under: “The AO has not pointed out any particular defect or discrepancy in the account books maintained by the assessee. The CIT(A) was satisfied that the assessee had furnished complete details, including quantitative details in respect of purchase of raw material, manufacture of copper wire and sale of the finished p…

The ITO, WD-4, Thiruvalla vs. M/S.Toms Enterprises, Changanacherry

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 442/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No.442/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Toms Enterprises, Ward-4, Thiruvalla. 505/XII, Industrial Estate, Industrial Nagar, Veroor, P.O., Changanacherry, Kottayam-689 106. [PAN:AAEFT 3381R] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Venkitachalam M.S., CA Date of hearing 04/02/2019 Date of pronouncement 07/02/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is d…

Rama Dairy, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Circle, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5309/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…and for estimation. He further submitted that every hear is independent. He further submitted that AO was not justified in adopting the result of AY 2010-11 also. In view of above contentions, he relied upon the following case laws:- - CIT vs. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del.) - CIT vs. OM Overseas 315 ITR 185 (P&H). - ACIT vs. Budhalal & Co. 47 SOT 27 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Vishwanath Prasad Gupta 137 TTJ 385 TM Jabalpur - CIT vs. Ludhiana Steel Roll Mills 295 ITR 111 (P&H) - Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 80 Taxman 184 (Gau.) 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR heavily supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) a…

Rajendra Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Bhavnagar Range- I, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 1157/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1157/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR

…d out. 14.3. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the order of the Gujarat High Court in case of Jaytick Intermediates (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT reported in 73 taxmann.com 195wherein it was held as under: “In CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani [2010] 192 Taxman 167/326 ITR 223 (Delhi) it was held that if stock register is 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 one register alone does not amount to such a material as would lead to the co…

M/S. Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6724/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. NARENDRA CHODHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:-6857/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Mehta Construction Company ACIT R-695, 2nd Floor, New Rajinder Vs. Circle – 62 (1) Nagar, New Delhi -110060 New Delhi PAN AAHFM3503D APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:-6724/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Mehta Construction Company DCIT R-695, 2nd Floor, New Rajinder Vs. Circle – 63 (1) Nagar, New Delhi -110060 New Delhi PAN AAHFM3503D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Mrs. Ranojain, Advocate Sh. Pran…

M/S Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6857/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143

Umapati Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4) ( New Ward-2(1)(4)), Surat

In the result,appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 493/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.493/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Umapati Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 302-A, Centre Point, Ward-4(4), 3Rd Floor,Ring Road, (New Ward-2(1)(4)) Surat. Surat. [Pan: Aaacu 6139P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Kumar Malpani, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05-06-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar MalpaniFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. D.R

Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 234C

…ance of day to day stock register is not a valid ground to reject books of accounts. Further, this view was also taken by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the 8 ITA No.493/Ahd/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Umapati Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. case of CIT vs. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del.), wherein it was held that if stock register is not maintained by the assessee that may put AO on guide against falsity of return made by the assessee and to scrutinize books of accounts carefully but in absence of one register alone does not amount to such a material as would lead to a conclusion that account books were incomplete or inacc…

Avery Dennison (I) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 7183/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Avery Dennison (I) Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Circle -3(2), New Delhi P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, Delhi Pan :Aaaca6163D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Sh. S.S. Tomar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2018 Order

Section 144Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…pointing out any cogent reasons, why the books of accounts do not reflect true and correct picture of profits. 2. The case of the Appellant on all fours is covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani [2010] 326 ITR 223 (Delhi) wherein it was held as under: "8. The fall in gross profit Ratio, in the absence of any cogent reasons could not, by itself, have been a ground to hold that proper income of the assessee cannot be deduced from the accounts maintained by her and consequently, could not have been a ground to reject the accounts invoking section 145(3) of th…

The ITO, Ward-(2)(4), Porbandar vs. M/S. Virgin Logistics, Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 384/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.384/Rjt/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Virgin Logistics, बनाम/ Ward – 2(4), 19, Gidc, Vs. Jr, Porbandar Dharampur, Porbandar-360 575

For Appellant: Shri Arvind N. Sontakke, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri D. S. Sodha, A.R

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

…hat sale price of those cash bills were lower than sale price of credit sales bills, in respect of which full names and addresses of buyers were written - Held, yes” We also rely on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Poonam Rani reported in 326 ITR 223, wherein, it was held as under: The Assessing Officer had not pointed out any particular defect or discrepancy in the account books maintained by the assessee. During the course of hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was pointed out by the assessee that her account books were duly audited under section 44AB of the Central Excise Act and…

Smt. Kantaben Ramjibhai Chaudhari, Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt.Kantaben Ramjibhai Chaudhari Ito, Ward-2 C/O. Jay Prabhu Seeds & Ginning Vs Gandhinagar. Factory Mansa Vijapur Highway Road Mansa, Gandhinagar.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 144Section 145Section 2

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘SMC’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt.Kantaben Ramjibhai Chaudhari ITO, Ward-2 C/o. Jay Prabhu Seeds & Ginning Vs Gandhinagar. Factory Mansa Vijapur Highway Road Mansa, Gandhinagar. PAN : ADXPC 2695 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.P. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/02/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 16/02/2018 O R D E R Pre…

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-21 vs. M/S Mehta Construction Co

The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms

ITA/314/2016HC Delhi08 Feb 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 145

…Page 1 of 9 ITA 314/2016 & connected appeals $~16 to 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 08.02.2018 + ITA 314/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-21 ..... Appellant versus M/S MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO. ..... Respondent ITA 315/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 ..... Appellant versus M/S MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO. ..... Respondent ITA 316/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-21 ..... Appellant versus M/S MEHTA CONSTRUCTION CO. ..... Respondent ITA 317/2016 PRINCIPAL…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax01(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Ishwar Ispat Industries Pvt. Ltd, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 188/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs Shabna Parveen, DR

Section 68

…trength of evidence, the AO's action in this regard is opposed to the legal standards enumerated above. 16. 1 find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant has maintained quantitative details. In the case of CIT vs. Smt Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Delhi) it was held that where an addition was made because of mere fail in gross profit without any defect in the accounts except for the. absence of stock register- deletion of addition was upheld by the High Court In Ashok Refractories Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (2005) 148 Taxman 635 (Cal.) it was held that the rejection of the books of account only in…

The ACIT, Circle- 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S. Balajee Structurals (India) Pvt. Ltd., Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 80/BIL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Abhishek Maloo Jain/P.C.Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit kumar Laskar, DR

Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-2011 ACIT, Cirlce-1(2), Vs. Balajee Structural (India) Central Avenue Building, Pvt.Ltd., Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) Ring Road No.2, Telibandha, Raipur (CG) PAN/GIR No.AABCB7575P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Ajit kumar Laskar, DR Assessee by : Abhishek Maloo Jain/P.C.Maloo, AR Date of Hearing : 09/01/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11 /01/ 2018 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against th…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S Arihant Pulication (India) Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5405/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 145(3)

…./2013 & 6640/Del./2014 9 the absence of stock register and the ld. CIT(A) restricted the same to 23%. The assessee has relied on the following case laws : (i). Jaytick Intermediates (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 73 Taxman.com 195(Guj.) (ii). CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani, 326 ITR 223 (Del.). (iii). Ashok Refractories P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 279 ITR 457 (Cal.) (iv). Swapna Rani Sarkar vs. CIT, 320 ITR 70 (Gau) (v). M. Durai Raj vs. CIT, 33 ITR 182 (SC) (vi). CIT vs. M/s. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95(Del.) (vii). Pandit Bors. Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 159 (Punj) (viii). Madnani Construction Corpn. P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 45(Gau). (ix).…

ACIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Firmenich Aromatics (I) P. Tld, Mumbai

In the result, departmental ground no

ITA 3744/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Dt Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Mrs. Puja Swaroop

Section 145Section 145(3)Section 40A

…at assessee has given the reason for not giving the Stock Register for day to day consumption. Therefore, we are of the view that Revenue Authorities are not justified in rejecting the book result. We also get the supports from decision of CIT vs. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 Delhi, Ashoka Refractories vs. CIT 279 ITR 547, CIT vs. Bhavani Industries 65 Taxmann Rajasthan and ACIT vs. Cementation of India 146 ITD 59 Mumbai. Therefore, considering the facts of this case we are of the view that the AO and the CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the same and we reverse the finding of the CIT(A) and we allow the appeal of…

ACIT, Kota vs. Himmatram Juharmal Sarraf, Kota

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

ITA 1058/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(CA)For Respondent: Shri Prakash Meena(JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

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

…R 243 (Raj.) (4) Pr. CIT Vs. Hues India Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2275 (RaJ.) dt. 30-07-2015 (5) ITO vs. Swastik Udyog 29 CCH 829 (Jaipur) (Trib.) 3 M/s Himmatram Juharmal Sarraf. (6) Prem Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 56 ITD 382 (JP). (7) CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223/41 DTR 194 (Del.) (2010) (8) CIT Vs. Saatal Kattha & Chemical (P.) Ltd. 296 ITR 197 (MP)(HC) (9) St. Teresa’s Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker.) (10) ACIT Vs. Nitrochem India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 43 CCH 54 (Ahd.) (Trib.) 2.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the order of t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4692/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, M-77, 1St Floor, Vikash Puri, New Delhi Ward-10(4), Room No.199C, Vs. Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aaccd4952F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sameer Kapoor, CA

…ccount and stock registers were produced before the AO and only one register could not be produced, it is argued that non-production of only one register cannot be a ground for addition as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani (2010) 192 Taxmann 167. As regards the purchase vouchers, it is submitted by the Id. AR that except for the purchases from M/s Peeyar Manufacutring and M/s Diam Circle all other purchases during the year were made from individual household customers who have sold their personal jewellery to the assessee. It is submitted that since individual customers do not carry…