Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jacksons House

198 Taxmann 385High Court2011#8271 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jacksons House authority for?

The mere absence of a stock or consumption register does not automatically justify the rejection of books of accounts and the framing of an assessment under Section 145. The rule of consistency should be applied when the department has accepted the manner of book-keeping in preceding and succeeding years.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jacksons House · Section 145 · Section 144 · rejection of books of accounts · stock register · consumption register · rule of consistency · assessment without justification

Issues it is cited on

section 145(3)section 145previous yearcompanysection 14businessinterest

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jacksons House

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai vs. Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…2016-17.The Ld. AR relied on the following judicial decisions. 1. CIT Vs. Symphony Confort Systems Ltd [216 Taxmann 225 (Guj]. 2. CIT Vs. Ceramic Industries [396 ITR 509 RAJ] 3. PCIT Vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., [388 ITR 237 (Guj)] 4. CIT Vs. Jacksons House [198 Taxmann 385] 5. CIT Vs. Jananamadal Ltd [214 Taxmann 49] 6. CIT Vs. Salochana Bhatia [208 Taxmann 224 (P&H)] 26. We find the Honble Tribunal in the case of Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bangalore Trib), dated 13-12-2021 has dealt on the transaction of cash sales during the demonization period and has observed at Para 6 of the ord…

Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…2016-17.The Ld. AR relied on the following judicial decisions. 1. CIT Vs. Symphony Confort Systems Ltd [216 Taxmann 225 (Guj]. 2. CIT Vs. Ceramic Industries [396 ITR 509 RAJ] 3. PCIT Vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., [388 ITR 237 (Guj)] 4. CIT Vs. Jacksons House [198 Taxmann 385] 5. CIT Vs. Jananamadal Ltd [214 Taxmann 49] 6. CIT Vs. Salochana Bhatia [208 Taxmann 224 (P&H)] 26. We find the Honble Tribunal in the case of Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bangalore Trib), dated 13-12-2021 has dealt on the transaction of cash sales during the demonization period and has observed at Para 6 of the ord…

Vishnu Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Vishnu Aggarwal, Vs. ITO, Ward-11(4) H.No. 1669, Faridabad Sector-55 Faridabad PAN AGAPA1634N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Singhal, Advocate Shri Umesh Seth, Advocate Department by: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.04.2022 06.01.2023 Date of 06.04.2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.12.2016 of the Ld. Commiss…

DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur vs. M/S Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 122/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing DCIT, Company, Vs. Central Circle-3, Jaipur. F-381, 382, Road No. 9F, VKI Area, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCK 0316 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 244/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessme…

M/S Shubham Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ellenabad vs. DCIT, Circle, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी आर.एल. नेगी, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , R.L. NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 1416/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s Shubham Cotton Mills(P) Ltd. The Dy. CIT बनाम Nohar Road, Ellenabad Circle, Sirsa "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAICS6150J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT सुनवाई…

ACIT, Jodhpur vs. M/S. Haswani Handicrafts, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 235/JODH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Haswani Handicrafts, Central Circle-2, B-2, Bank Colony, Ummaid Jodhpur. Bhawan Palace Road, Rai Ka Bag, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aabfh 5114 P

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69BSection 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.C.I.T. Vs. M/s Haswani Handicrafts, Central Circle-2, B-2, Bank Colony, Ummaid Jodhpur. Bhawan Palace Road, Rai Ka Bag, Jodhpur. PAN No. AABFH 5114 P Revenue by Shri A.S. Yadav, JCIT DR Assessee by Shri Ajay Moondra, CA Date of Hearing 4.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Jodhpur dated 20/02/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein the Revenue has raised fol…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 233/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण न्यायपीठ रायपुर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.232 to 235/RPR/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd., Mahamaya Tower, 3rd & 4th Floor, In front of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN: AABCR0695Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent CO Nos.32 to 35/RPR/2015 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 M/s.…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 232/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण न्यायपीठ रायपुर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.232 to 235/RPR/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd., Mahamaya Tower, 3rd & 4th Floor, In front of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN: AABCR0695Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent CO Nos.32 to 35/RPR/2015 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 M/s.…

M/S Hare Rama Hare Krishna Corals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.N. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh- 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa h Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 209/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16. cuke M/s. Hare Rama Hare Krishna The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Corals Pvt. Ltd., Ward-6(2), C-101-G, Ridhi Sidhi Complex, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABCH 7017 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

Vishnu Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 357/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-357/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) Vishnu Aggarwal vs ITO H.No. 1669, Sector-55, Ward 11(4) Faridabad. Faridabad. PAN No. AGAPA1634N (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Shri K.C. Singhal, CA Respondent by Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 10.11.2016 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Faridabad relevant to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds of appeal: - 1. “That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad…

Ankur Goel, Karnal vs. JCIT, Karnal

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

ITA 6213/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Ankur Goel, Jcit, Range Karnal, 2201/13, Urban Estate, Karnal. Vs. Karnal.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dandey, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ankur Goel, JCIT, Range Karnal, 2201/13, Urban Estate, Karnal. Vs. Karnal. PAN : AGVPB8053C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Department by : Shri R. C. Dandey, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 27-09-2017 Date of pronouncement : 15-12-2017 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.07.2013 of the CIT(A), Karnal relating to assessment year 2009-10. 2. Facts of t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1332/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(1), Room No. Jaipuria Infrastructure 407, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Developers, 9B, Hansalaya, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaccb1286C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Sh. Rupesh Jain & Dipesh Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 28/01/2011 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi [In Short “The Cit-(A)”] For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/s. DCIT, Circle – 4(1), Room No. Jaipuria Infrastructure 407, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Developers, 9B, Hansalaya, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AACCB1286C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR Respondent by S/sh. Rupesh Jain & Dipesh Jain, Adv. Date of hearing 18.05.2017 Date of pronouncement 16.06.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 28/01/2011 o…

Smec International Pty. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 5926/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Range-2, M/S. Smec International Pvt. Ltd., Bansal’S Flat, P-39 , 1St New Delhi Floor, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi Pan : Aaics3406K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. M. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Anuj Arora, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/10/2012 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Giving Effect To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (In Short ‘Drp’). The Grounds Raised In Appeal Were Modified Through An Application Dated 24/09/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Rejecting Books Of Account As There Are No Descrepancies & The Lower Profit Is No Reason To Reject The Books Of Account & The A O Is Also Wrong In Holding That The Separate Project Wise

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 163Section 40Section 44BSection 44D

…t decline in NP rate cannot be a reason for rejecting books of accounts. In this connection, the learned Authorized Representative relied on various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jackson’s house (2011) 198 Taxmann 385 (Delhi). 3.2.5 The learned Authorized Representative submitted that having accepted in preceding and succeeding years, the manner in which the assessee maintained its books of accounts, the Department cannot turn around and impose in a solitary year, the condition of project-wise records for purpose of rejecting the books of accounts, especia…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jacksons House (198 Taxmann 385) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax