How many judgments cite Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT (64 ITR 593), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 69B, Section 153A, Section 69, Section 132(4).

Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT

64 ITR 593High Court1967#3597 most cited

What is Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT authority for?

Cash credits appearing in an assessee's business books throughout the accounting period, where the assessee's main activity involves cultivation, manufacture, and sale of tea, can be treated as business income under Section 68.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credits · business books · tea garden · undisclosed income · business income

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 69B Section 153A Section 69 Section 132(4)Section 69A Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 69d section 115be abatement of assessment section 71 set off of losses section 4(1)section 153a proceedings section 66 warrant of authorisation third party information section 69b section 158bd

Judgments citing Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Fatehabad vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 80/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

…on account of survey by Rs.38,00,000/-. B) The reliance is placed on following judgments:- i) DDK Spining Mills [2023] 157 taxmann.com 817 (Chd. Tribunal). ii) Harish Sharma vs. ITO [ITA No. 327/CHD/2020] by ITAT Chd. iii) Daulatram Rawatmull Vs. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 593 (Calcutta). iv) Judgment by Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT in the case of Gurdeep Singh Ubhi in ITA No. 551/CHD/2022. iv) Hon'ble Chandigarh (Jurisdictional) Bench„of ITAT in the case of M/s Sham Jewellers in ITA No. 375/CHD/2022. v) Hon'ble Chandigarh (Jurisdictional) Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s Sham Jewellers in ITA No. 315/CHD/2022. vi) Hon'…

Sh. Krishan Kumar, Khanna vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

…Haryana High Court in case of M/s Kim Pharma Pvt. Ltd. as well as Gujarat High Court in case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs CIT. 10. Further reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the cases of ‘DaulatramRawatmull vs. CIT’, 64 ITR 593, in ‘Mansfeild and Sons vs. CIT’, 48 ITR 254 (Cal.), and Coordinate Chandigarh Benches decision in cases of ‘M/s Sham Jewellers Vs. The DCIT’, (in ITA No. 375/Chd/2022, ‘M/s Sham Fashion Mall’ in ITA 315/Chd/2022, ‘Bajaj Sons Ltd.’, (ITA No. 1127/Chd/2019)’, ‘DCIT vs. M/s Khurana Rolling Pvt Ltd’ 175-Chd-2023– Shri Krishan Kumar, Khanna 24 (I…

Shri Deepak Setia, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 112/ASR/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.112/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…amount in question as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act and computed the Tax liability under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.” 4.2. Respectfully reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment in the case of DaulatramRawatmullvs. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 593, wherein Hon’ble Calcutta High Courtheld that: “61. In the instant case the assessee is a firm formed for the purpose of carrying on business. There is nothing on record to show that the firm had any source of income other than business. Therefore. in our opinion, it is not unreasonable to hold that any amount representing secret income arose out…

The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Gandhidham - Kutch vs. M/S. Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers, Gandhidham - Kutch

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

ITA 239/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 69ASection 69C

…rther that when amount is found credited in books maintained for business then it is not unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. He then referred to the decisions of Hon. Calcutta High Court in the case of DaulatramRawatmull vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 (Cal), and CIT vs. Margarets Hope Tea Co. Ltd. 201 ITR 747 (Cal) for the same proposition. 7. The ld. AR further submitted that if there is a positive figure under the head 'business' then it has to be necessarily aggregated with the deemed income under section 69A, 69B & 69C for working out gross total income from which allowable deductions unde…

Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 211/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, I.T.O., B-102, Swastik Woods, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(2), Vs. Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Ammpg 2317 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

…lls (P) Ltd. 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj) (13) J.K. Choksi Vs ACIT Tax Appeal No. 149 of 2003 (14) Green Associates Vs PCIT Tax Appeal No. 1199 of 2018 (Guj)] (15) CIT Vs Mhaskar General Hospital in Tax Appeal No. 1474 of 2009 (Guj) (16) Daulataram Rawatmull Vs CIT 64 ITR 593 (Cal) (17) Mansfield and Sons Vs CIT 48 ITR 254 (Cal.) 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR submits that certificate of sub-broker was issued by Akbar Online Booking Pvt. Ltd., thus admittedly the assessee was not a travel agent of IRCTC. The concession of receiving old curr…

Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Mangal Jewels P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1408/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Section 131Section 133ASection 68

…ncome u/s 69A of the Act as observed by the AO. In support of this proposition, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision 7 Shree Mangal Jewels Private Limited rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Daulatram Rawatmull vs. CIT (1967)(64 ITR 593)(Cal.). 12. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition with the following observations:- “9.3 Coming to the cash sales made by the assessee, I agree with the assessee that no discrepancy in the stock of the assessee as such was found by the investigating officer or by the AO. In…

DCIT 29(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Kirti Ramji Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3341/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3341/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-29(2) बिधम/ Kirti Ramji Kothari Room No.422, 4Th Floor, A/7, Maheh Krupa Devi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, B.K.C. Dayal Cross Road, Mulund Bandra (E), Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400080. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepk3216C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 14.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim That The Profit Of Rs. 5,75,40,478/- From F & O Trading Was To Be Assessed Either As Business Income Or Under Either Of The Heads Of Income A To F Of Section 14 Of The Lt. Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Investigation & Analysis Of The A.Y.2015-16 Facts As Borne Out By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Clearly Establish That The Profit Was Bogus & Sham Earned Through Synchronized Trading In Illiquid Stock Option & Accordingly The Same Was Correctly Assessed U/S 68 Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…7 the Bench observed as follows: 4 A.Y.2015-16 A similar question came up before this Court in C/T v. Hasimara Industries Ltd. [IT Reference No. 5 of 1984, dated 25-7-1983]. There, the bench, after considering the decision in Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT 1967 64 ITR 593 Cal. observed as follows: "There is no dispute as to the fact that the cash credit account was appearing in the assessee’s tea garden books of account, ie., business books of account. The cash credits continued throughout the accounting period. The assessee’s main activity was the cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea. For the assessment year…

Deccan Jewellers Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2020[10000]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-2018) M/S Deccan Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of K.B.N.Complex Income Tax (Central) D.No.27-16-65 Visakhapatnam Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccd1524H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrim.V.Prasad.Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr 22.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

For Appellant: ShriM.V.Prasad.ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 69

…ajargan Traders Vs. ACIT ITA No.137/JP/17, dated 17.03.2017 vii) CIT Vs. S.K.Srigiri and Brothers 298 ITR 13 viii) DCIT Vs. V.Ram Narayan Birla ITA No.482/JP/2015 dated 30.09.2016 ix) Chaksi Hiralal Magan Lal Vs. DCIT 45 SOT 349 x) Daulatram Rawatmull Vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 xi) M/s A Star Exports ITA No.4411 Mumbai ITAT 4 I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2020, A.Y.2017-18 M/s Deccan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada xii) M/s Silver Palace, Pune Vs. DCIT ITA No.893/Pun/2016 The Ld.Pr.CIT considered the explanation offered by the assessee and viewed that the objections raised by the assessee are not acceptable and accordingly viewed…

Deccan Tobacco Company, Guntur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Viskhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Deccan Tobacco Company Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.5-7-6-1/5, Brodipet (Central) Guntur Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aahfd1174H]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal. CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 263Section 69

…) Bajargan Traders Vs. ACIT ITA No.137/JP/17, dated 17.03.2017 vii) CIT Vs. S.K.Srigiri and Brothers 298 ITR 13 viii) DCIT Vs. V.Ram Narayan Birla ITA No.482/JP/2015 dated 30.09.2016 ix) ChaksiHiralalMagan Lal Vs. DCIT 45 SOT 349 x) DaulatramRawatmull Vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 xi) M/s A Star Exports ITA No.4411 Mumbai ITAT xii) M/s Silver Palace, Pune Vs. DCIT ITA No.893/Pun/2016 2.1. The Ld.Pr.CIT considered the explanation offered by the assessee and viewed that the objections raised by the assessee are not acceptable and accordingly viewed that the excess stock found during the course of search declared as additional…

Dte Exports Private Limited, Guntur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 138/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.138/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Dte Exports Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.5-7-6, 1/5, Brodipet (Central) Guntur Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd7845B]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal. CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…HHC was also allowed. CIT vs Haswani Arts 352 ITR 574 (Rajasthan), CIT vs Margaret's Hope Tea Co Ltd- 01 ITR 747 Kolkata) wherein excess stock was treated as 'profit from the business', so as to allow the deduction. In the case of Daulatram Rawatmull vs CIT (64 ITR 593), Kolkata, It was held that where a credit entry is found in the business accounts of an assessee and the explanation as to how the amount came to be received is rejected by the income-tax authorities and the amount is taken to be income from an undisclosed source, such income can be treated as business income, if the assessee has no other source…

ACIT, Circle-1, Burdwan vs. M/S. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan

ITA 910/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

…milar question came up before this court in I. T.Ref. No. 5 of 1984 (CIT vs. Hasimara Industries Ltd.), where tile judgement by this Bench was delivered 011 July 25, 1989. There, tile Bench, after, considering the decision in Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 593, observed as follows,' "There is no dispute as to tile fact th at the cash credit account was appearing in tile assessee's tea garden books of account i.e. business books of account. Tile cash credits continued throughout tile accounting period. The assessee's Main activity was tile cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea. For the Assessment Year…

M/S. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Burdwan

ITA 1187/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

Anish Tandon vs. C.I.T. IX

ITA/592/2005HC Delhi30 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 69Section 80Section 80H

…ports. And in the absence of any finding or material bought on record by A.O. to prove that the income as surrendered was from activity other than Benu Exports, the principle pronounced by the Hon. Courts of India in 35 ITR 416 (SC) Laxmichand Baijnath, 64 ITR 593 (Cal) Daulat Ram Rawet Mal, 201 ITR 747 (Cal) Margaret Hope Tea Co. Ltd. and decision rendered on 15.7.98 by ITAT, Delhi Bench C in Raj Kumar Mittal (ITA No. 5610/Del/02), would be applicable as it would have to be held that the source of investment in the surrendered stock of fabric of Rs.15 lacs is income from export of garments by Benu Ex…