CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain

296 ITR 324High Court2008#2129 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain authority for?

When business income is estimated, disallowances under Section 40A(3) for cash payments and Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS should not be made.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain · 296 ITR 324 · Section 40A(3) disallowance · Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance · estimated income · best judgment assessment · cash expenditure · TDS default · search assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153DSection 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 153aofsection 153b(1)(b)unexplained jewellerylegal expensesannual valuesection 40a(3)section 132(4a)rule of consistencysection 40aappeal before cit(a)section 40section 194c

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain

DCIT, Panchkula vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1062/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1062/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2018-19 The Dcit, Haryana Urban Development Panchkula. Vs Authority, Sector 06, Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaah0087M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Assessee By : Ms. Rattan Kaur, Ca Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R Hybrid Hearing Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Ms. Rattan Kaur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

…stant case as in that case after addition on the basis of net profit rate other additions were made on account of purchase and introduction of cash. Hence this case also is not applicable; In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324 (P&H) facts are different in that case as compared to the instant case as that case belongs to search and seizure assessment. Hence this case too is not applicable, and in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sarv Prakash Kapoor (2009) 119 ITD (Agra)(TM) 197 facts are different in that case as compared to the instant case as in th…

DCIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, Mohali

ITA 15/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 729/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company बनाम/ Vs. Cr Building, Sector 17 1, Mubarikpur To Ramgarh Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vpo Mubarikpur, Mohali (Punjab) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No.39/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 729/Chandi/2022) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co. No.40/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 15/Chandi/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ Sco 506, Chirag Homes-2 Cr Building, Sector 17 Near Arista Place, Sector 123 Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Sunny Enclave, Mohali (Punjab)-140301 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (Cross Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

…audited books of accounts. The Ld. AR further contended that when the income is estimated, no such adjustment is to be made for probable disallowances u/s 40A(3) / 40(a)(ia) in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Jain (296 ITR 324) & Aggarwal Engg. Co. (302 ITR 246). Another argument is that there is no unaccounted profit earned on unaccounted sales. The combined regular sales of mining entities were Rs.77.43 Crores which substantially matches with the seized material after making allowance of discount as offered by the assessee group to its customers. On these facts, Ld.…

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, Mohali

ITA 729/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 729/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company बनाम/ Vs. Cr Building, Sector 17 1, Mubarikpur To Ramgarh Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vpo Mubarikpur, Mohali (Punjab) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No.39/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 729/Chandi/2022) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co. No.40/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 15/Chandi/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ Sco 506, Chirag Homes-2 Cr Building, Sector 17 Near Arista Place, Sector 123 Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Sunny Enclave, Mohali (Punjab)-140301 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (Cross Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

…audited books of accounts. The Ld. AR further contended that when the income is estimated, no such adjustment is to be made for probable disallowances u/s 40A(3) / 40(a)(ia) in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Jain (296 ITR 324) & Aggarwal Engg. Co. (302 ITR 246). Another argument is that there is no unaccounted profit earned on unaccounted sales. The combined regular sales of mining entities were Rs.77.43 Crores which substantially matches with the seized material after making allowance of discount as offered by the assessee group to its customers. On these facts, Ld.…

Paramjeet Singh, Yamuna Nagar vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle (2), Chandigarh, DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 204/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Paramjeet Singh Dcit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ (C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates) Sector-17 Sco No 823-24, Sector 22-A Chandigarh-160017 Vs. Chandigarh-160022 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Astps-8898-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhruv Goel(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 153A Of The Act On 23-06-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.82.18 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) -Ld. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…r audited books of accounts. The Ld. AR further contended that when the income is estimated, no such adjustment is to be made for probable disallowances u/s 40A(3) / 40(a)(ia) in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Jain (296 ITR 324) & Aggarwal Engg. Co. (302 ITR 246). Another argument is that there is no unaccounted profit earned on unaccounted sales. The combined regular sales of mining entities were Rs.77.43 Crores which substantially matches with the seized material after making allowance of discount as offered by the assessee group to its customers. On these facts, Ld.…

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Northern Royalty Company, Yamunanagar

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 730/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 730/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit-Central Circle 2 M/S Northern Royalty Company बनाम/ Vs. Cr Building Sector 17 603-604, Model Town, Santpura Road Chandigarh-160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfn-9130-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No. 38/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 730/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Northern Royalty Company Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ 603-604, Model Town, Santpura Road Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh-160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfn-9130-H (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153C

…r audited books of accounts. The Ld. AR further contended that when the income is estimated, no such adjustment is to be made for probable disallowances u/s 40A(3) / 40(a)(ia) in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Jain (296 ITR 324) & Aggarwal Engg. Co. (302 ITR 246). Another argument is that there is no unaccounted profit earned on unaccounted sales. The combined regular sales of mining entities were Rs.77.43 Crores which substantially matches with the seized material after making allowance of discount as offered by the assessee group to its customers. On these facts, Ld.…

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. Shri Karaj Singh, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 726/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 Shri Karaj Singh बनाम/ Cr Building Sector 17 H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti Vs. Chandigarh 160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. Co. No. 16/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Karaj Singh Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti, Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…r audited books of accounts. The Ld. AR further contended that when the income is estimated, no such adjustment is to be made for probable disallowances u/s 40A(3) / 40(a)(ia) in terms of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Jain (296 ITR 324) & Aggarwal Engg. Co. (302 ITR 246). Another argument is that there is no unaccounted profit earned on unaccounted sales. The combined regular sales of mining entities were Rs.77.43 Crores which substantially matches with the seized material after making allowance of discount as offered by the assessee group to its customers. On these facts, Ld.…

ACIT CC 6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Roshni Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4471/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Vs Roshni Enterprises Of Income Tax Central 519, The Great Eastern Circle 6(1), Mumbai Gallaria, Sector 04, Bkc, Mumbai Nerul 400706. Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aasfr6639Q Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1065343505(1), Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065343031(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065342652(1), Dated 03.06.2024, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Dcit, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22, Dated M/S. Roshni Enterprises Ays 2021-22, 2019-20 & 2018-19 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2019-20 & Dated 31.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…ann.com 217 (Raj.) b) CIT-II vs. Hindustan Equipment (P.) Ltd [2013] 30 taxmann.com 295 (MP). c) CIT (Central) vs. Gobind Ram [2014] 48 taxmann.com 14 (P&H). d) M. Shyamalanathan & Co. vs. ITO [2023] 153 taxmann.com 23 (Chennai) e) CIT vs. Santosh Jain [2008] 296 ITR 324 (P&H) f) CIT vs. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar [2004] 270 ITR 314 (MP) 12. Assessee also submitted that no addition u/s 69C can be made once the on-money/unaccounted receipts are considered as "revenue receipts" while making addition to income and any expenditure out of such money cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure as it would amount to doubl…

ACIT CC 6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Roshni Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Vs Roshni Enterprises Of Income Tax Central 519, The Great Eastern Circle 6(1), Mumbai Gallaria, Sector 04, Bkc, Mumbai Nerul 400706. Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aasfr6639Q Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1065343505(1), Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065343031(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065342652(1), Dated 03.06.2024, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Dcit, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22, Dated M/S. Roshni Enterprises Ays 2021-22, 2019-20 & 2018-19 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2019-20 & Dated 31.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…ann.com 217 (Raj.) b) CIT-II vs. Hindustan Equipment (P.) Ltd [2013] 30 taxmann.com 295 (MP). c) CIT (Central) vs. Gobind Ram [2014] 48 taxmann.com 14 (P&H). d) M. Shyamalanathan & Co. vs. ITO [2023] 153 taxmann.com 23 (Chennai) e) CIT vs. Santosh Jain [2008] 296 ITR 324 (P&H) f) CIT vs. Purshottam Lal Tamrakar [2004] 270 ITR 314 (MP) 12. Assessee also submitted that no addition u/s 69C can be made once the on-money/unaccounted receipts are considered as "revenue receipts" while making addition to income and any expenditure out of such money cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure as it would amount to doubl…

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Bilaspur

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

ITA 512/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…therefore, he could not have been separately visited with a disallowance under the aforesaid statutory provision. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, (2008) 296 ITR 324 (P & H), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that where the income of the assessee has been computed by applying a gross profit rate, there is no need to look into the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act, as applying the gross profit rate takes care of expenses otherwise than by way of crossed cheque also. Thus, the Ground of appeal…

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 511/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…therefore, he could not have been separately visited with a disallowance under the aforesaid statutory provision. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, (2008) 296 ITR 324 (P & H), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that where the income of the assessee has been computed by applying a gross profit rate, there is no need to look into the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act, as applying the gross profit rate takes care of expenses otherwise than by way of crossed cheque also. Thus, the Ground of appeal…

Nishant Jain, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 510/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 510, 511 & 512/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Nishant Jain Ring Road No.2, Shanti Nagar, Near Sidhasikhar Vistar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Agepj9793M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…therefore, he could not have been separately visited with a disallowance under the aforesaid statutory provision. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, (2008) 296 ITR 324 (P & H), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that where the income of the assessee has been computed by applying a gross profit rate, there is no need to look into the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act, as applying the gross profit rate takes care of expenses otherwise than by way of crossed cheque also. Thus, the Ground of appeal…

Meenakshi Saree Centre (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5317/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshmeenakshi Saree Centre (P) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, C/O. M/S. Raj Kumar & Circle-16(2), Associates, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), New Delhi South Extension, Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9565J

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…the Learned AO ought not to have disturbed the trading results declared by the assessee company and in support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt Santhosh Jain reported in 296 ITR 324 (P&H). It was also submitted by the Learned AR that the return was filed after declaring loss of Rs 5.38 crores and even after the additions made by the Learned AO, the assessed income still resulted in a loss of Rs 4.19 crores. Hence there could not be any malafide that could be attributed to the assessee in the instant case. The assessee had a…

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1051/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…al No.2408 of 2006. The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All), Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Jadau Jewelers & Manufacturers (P.) Ltd., (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Raj) and Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society, (2014) 362 ITR 92 (Guj) for this proposition and Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of M.Shya…

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1050/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…al No.2408 of 2006. The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All), Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Jadau Jewelers & Manufacturers (P.) Ltd., (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Raj) and Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society, (2014) 362 ITR 92 (Guj) for this proposition and Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of M.Shya…

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1049/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…al No.2408 of 2006. The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All), Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Jadau Jewelers & Manufacturers (P.) Ltd., (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Raj) and Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society, (2014) 362 ITR 92 (Guj) for this proposition and Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of M.Shya…

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1048/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…al No.2408 of 2006. The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All), Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Jadau Jewelers & Manufacturers (P.) Ltd., (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Raj) and Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society, (2014) 362 ITR 92 (Guj) for this proposition and Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of M.Shya…

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1047/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…al No.2408 of 2006. The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All), Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Jadau Jewelers & Manufacturers (P.) Ltd., (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Raj) and Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society, (2014) 362 ITR 92 (Guj) for this proposition and Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of M.Shya…

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1046/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…al No.2408 of 2006. The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar, (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All), Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Santosh Jain, (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Jadau Jewelers & Manufacturers (P.) Ltd., (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Raj) and Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loser Travellers Co-operative Society, (2014) 362 ITR 92 (Guj) for this proposition and Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of M.Shya…

Asstt. CIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur vs. Smt. Joti Suresh Bajoria, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 151/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.151/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria, Commissioner Of Income V 402/403, Jagat Plaza, Law Tax, Circle-1(1), S College Square, Amravati Nagpur. Road, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Abrpb2740G Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kapil Sharma– Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E.Acit, Circle-1(1), Nagpur Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Dated 26.03.2018 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 153A Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria [R]

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…hat no disallowance under seduction 40A(3) can be made once profit is estimated. The ld.AR relied on following case laws : 3 Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria [R] S.No. Particulars 1. J.K. Construction Co. Vs. ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) 2. CIT Vs. Smt. Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324 (P&H HC) 3. CIT Vs. Gobind Ram (2015) 229 Taxman 491 (P&H HC) 4. PCIT Vs. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Rajasthan HC : Jaipur Bench) 5. CIT Vs. S. Mohammad Dhurabudeen (2008) 4 DTR 218 (Madras HC) 6. CIT Vs. Purshottamlal Tamrakar Uchehra (2004) 270 ITR 314 (MP HC) 7. CIT Vs. Banwarilal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229…

Puradakoppalu Battegowda Karigowda, Mandya vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1024/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: S/Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Ankur Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…wari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (Allahabad); b. Madras High Court in CIT v S Mohammed Dhurabudeen [Tax Case (Appeal) No. 885/2007]; ITA Nos. 1021 to 1024/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 10 c. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT (Central) v Smt Santosh Jain (2008) 296 ITR 324 (Punjab & Haryana); d. Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT (Central) v Gobind Ram (2014) 48 taxmann.com 14 (Punjab & Haryana); e. Madras High Court in CIT v Amman Steel & Allied Industries (2015) 377 ITR 568 (Madras); f. Rajasthan High Court in PCIT v Jadau Jewellers & Manufactures (P) Ltd (2018) 409 ITR 85 (Rajasthan). 9. The ld AR also presented…