Kachwala Gems v. JCIT

288 ITR 10Supreme Court of India2007#229 most cited

What is Kachwala Gems v. JCIT authority for?

In a best judgment assessment, some guesswork is inherent, but the estimate must be fair and not arbitrary. Books of account can be rejected under Section 145(3) if the assessee fails to substantiate entries or prove the genuineness of transactions, leading to estimation of income.

332

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

Kachwala Gems v. JCIT · Section 145(3) · best judgment assessment · rejection of books of account · genuineness of purchases · arbitrary estimate · onus to prove transactions · estimation of income · Section 144 · Section 69C

Also reported as

158 Taxmann 71

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

Issues it is cited on

best judgment assessmentrejection of books of accountsection 145(3)section 145loose paperssection 133asection 132(4)documents seizedaccommodation entryregular assessmentsection 69cservice of notice

Judgments citing Kachwala Gems v. JCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI , BELAGAVI vs. SHRI IDREES MOHAMMED, KALABURAGI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 149/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi, . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Idrees Mohammed Shop No. 4Cc, New Vegetable Market, Main Road, Kalaburagi, Karnataka-585101. Pan: Aajpi7572E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 69A

…essment to the best judgment where the ITAT-Panaji Page 24 of 30 DCIT Vs Idrees Mohammed ITA No. 149/PAN/2023 AY: 2017-18 assessee failed to produce relevant records of its day-to-day activities. A similar view can be traced in ‘Kachwala Gems Vs JCIT’ [2007, 288 ITR 10 (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court also espoused rejection of books for incompleteness owning to non-maintenance/non-production records for the purpose of verification. 6.10 In view of the former judicial precedents (supra), we see no reason for reversing the rejection of books owning to non- production of records in the course of assessment pr…

TULSIDAS VIRJI CHOTHANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 27(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailtulsidas Virji Chothani, 601, 6Th Floor, Shantrunjay Building, Neelkanth Valley, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai - 400077 ............... Appellant Pan: Aabpc0337M V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(3)(1) It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Building, ……………… Respondent Navi Mumbai - 400703

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…or reconciliation accepted through proper revised return, estimation by AO is justified. Courts have consistently upheld that where true state of accounts is doubtful, AO can resort to reasonable estimate. For example in the case Kachwala Gems v. JCIT (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- “……………………It is well settled that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment, and should not act totally arbitrarily, but there is necessari…

JORSS BULLION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4758/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

…ite defects and not on mere suspicion. b) CIT v. A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar - (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) Before rejecting books, the AO must show that true profits cannot be deduced from the method of accounting regularly employed. c) Kachwala Gems v. JCIT - (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC) Rejection of books is permissible only after pointing out specific defects, such as (a) non-maintenance of stock register, (b) unverifiable purchases/sales, (c) incorrect valuation 23. Having rejected section 69C addition, the Ld. CIT(A) was not expected to have adopted a presumptive assumption and had no authority to estimate commission inco…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. JORSS BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4004/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 69C

…ite defects and not on mere suspicion. b) CIT v. A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar - (1964) 53 ITR 122 (SC) Before rejecting books, the AO must show that true profits cannot be deduced from the method of accounting regularly employed. c) Kachwala Gems v. JCIT - (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC) Rejection of books is permissible only after pointing out specific defects, such as (a) non-maintenance of stock register, (b) unverifiable purchases/sales, (c) incorrect valuation 23. Having rejected section 69C addition, the Ld. CIT(A) was not expected to have adopted a presumptive assumption and had no authority to estimate commission inco…

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…O could make additions by depending on the figures given in the books of accounts or whether he was obliged to estimate the profit by applying a net profit rate. From the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT, Jaipur 288 ITR 10 SC and various Tribunal decisions, the ld. CIT(A) held that even though the ld. AO had rejected the books of accounts, additions could be made on the same set of books of accounts instead of applying the net profit rate. He pointed out that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B Abdul Qadir vs. CIT 36 ITR 341 had held that addition under s…

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SANTOSH VIMLESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3725/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra Mahajan, SR-DR
Section 10(38)Section 69A

…The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems, Jaipur vs Joint Commissioner of Income Kachwala Gems, Jaipur vs Joint Commissioner of Income Kachwala Gems, Jaipur vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur is 288 ITR 10 (SC) 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that has held that making payment through banking channel is itself is not a sacrosanct payment through banking channel is itself is not a sacrosanct payment through banking channel is itself is not a sacrosanct to establish the genuineness of the transaction. the genuineness of the transaction. Similarly copy Similar…

BIMAL KUNJBIHARI GORAI, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 42/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 68

…in cash sales recorded to 60 retail customers—almost all below Rs. 2,00,000/- without any details of identity, PAN, or address. These findings were affirmed by the CIT(Appeals), who relied on binding judicial precedents including Kachwala Gems v. JCIT (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC), Awadhesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rehman & Bros. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 406 (All), Bastiram Narayandas v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 438 (Bom), Bimal Kunjbihari Gorai-HUF vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 7– and G. Raja Gopala Rao v. DCIT (ITA No. 293/Vizag/2016, ITAT Visakhapatnam), wherein rejection of books was upheld when stock registers were not maintained…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JIND, JIND vs. VIKAS JAIN, JIND

In the result, the assessee succeeds in its cross-objection

ITA 838/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.838/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Shri Vikas Jain बनाम/ Ward 1 Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Vs. Jind-126102. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co No. 28/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No.838/Chandi/2024) Shri Vikas Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Ward 1 Vs. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (Cross Objector) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69C

…were genuine. Support is drawn from the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kachwala Gems Vs. JCIT (ITA No.134/JP/2002 dated 10.12.2003), affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kachwala Gems Vs. JCIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 585; 288 ITR 10 (SC), in which it has been held that even payment of account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. When the entry operator himself accepted that he had given only accommodation entries to the beneficiaries from their bogus concerns as well as through detailed enquiry / investigation, it has been established…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. AZAD COACH PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6006/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 250

…arned A.O. has passed the assessment u/s 143(3) which is normal scrutiny assessment provision and estimated income can’t be imposed under the normal provisions. The issue is also covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kachwala Gems v. Jt. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 10/158 taxman 71 where it was held that rejection of books of accounts under section 145 justified and best judgment u/s 144 of the act needed. In the present case, Ld. AO has invoked the provision the section 145 but has passed the order u/s 143(3), so keeping in view the above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court assessee’s case is strong and shall be Fa…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2167/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 74

…urther, he has also held that: Though the appellant’s claims that the payments for these purchases were made through cheque but that alone will not determine the genuineness of these purchases as the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in case of Kanchawala Gems (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC). Thus, the claim of the assessee that the said purchases are genuine cannot be accepted in totality. 6.2 However, despite upholding the findings of the AO that the impugned purchases were non genuine, the ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% of the total amount of Rs 2.14 cr. which is apparently contrary to decisions of jurisdictional Hig…

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2166/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: \nShri Sanjay R. Parikh, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 74

…her, he has also held that: Though the appellant's claims that the\npayments for these purchases were made through cheque but that alone will not\ndetermine the genuineness of these purchases as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in case of\nKanchawala Gems (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC). Thus, the claim of the assessee that the said\npurchases are genuine cannot be accepted in totality.\n6.2 However, despite upholding the findings of the AO that the\nimpugned purchases were non genuine, the ld.CIT(A) restricted the\naddition to 8% of the total amount of Rs 2.14 cr. which is apparently\ncontrary to decisions of jurisdictional…

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…{ "clean_text": "vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;i qj U;k;ihB] t;i qj \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR \nMk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; d s le{k\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respond…

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…at the assessee failed to show any incremental expenses, additional indirect costs, or higher discounts justifying a lower NP. Further, the assessee did not produce any party or books to counter the estimation. 5. Supporting Precedents: Kachwala Gems v. JCIT [288 ITR 10 (SC)]: Estimation of income is permissible when books are not reliable. CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [188 ITR 44 (SC)]: AO duty-bound to adopt reasonable basis for estimating correct income. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [26 ITR 775 (SC)]: Fair estimation permissible even in absence of complete records. 6. Mutatis Mutandis Application of…

JEWELS EMPORIUM A LEGACY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CC-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1215/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT,Sr.-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…a, the ld. DR has supported the order of AO. It was also submitted that the order being correct has been upheld by ld. CIT(A). Besides above, the ld. DR placed reliance on the case of Kachwala Gems, Jaipur Vs. JCIT decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 288 ITR 10 (2006) wherein the apex court has held as under : 7. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld most of the findings of the Assessing Officer, but reduced the Gross Profit from 40 per cent to 35 per cent. 8. In further appeal, the Tribunal had given further relief to the assessee and reduced the Gross Profit rate to 30 per cent. 9…

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BLUE STAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 1375/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Blue Star Diamonds Pvt Ltd Ce-9010,9013, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Room No.568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, 400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aadcb6475E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 14ASection 250

…cumstances of the case the Ld. CITTA) has erred in dismissing the action of the AD rejecting the book route us. 145(3) rws 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems Vs JCIT, Jaipur 288 ITR 10 (BC) where it was held that there was no arbitrariness of the Income Tax authority in rejection of the books u/s 145(3) where the assesse failed to submit evidence/documents to verify the basis of valuation of closing stock valuation shown by it and the assesse has himself to blame for not submitting the same and once the books of account of asses…

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…t and not anyone else's The High Court cannot substitute its best judgment for that of the assessing authority." It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur [2007] 158 Taxman 71 (SC)/[2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC)/[2006] 206 CTR 585 (SC)[14-12-2006] that it is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain degree of guess work and it is the assessee himself who is to blame as he did not submit proper accounts. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Tara Singh V ITO [2017] 81 taxmann.com 293 (Punjab & Haryana) h…

RAJBANSH RAM,BHABUA vs. ITO WARD- 3(5), SASARAM

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

ITA 351/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण पटना पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री जॉजु माथान, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 351/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajbansh Ram ITO, Ward-3(5), Sasaram Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ASRPR3108D Appearances: Assessee represented by : Manish Rastogi, Adv. Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : 08-April-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 04-Jul…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…y view, it would be unwise to adopt the PBT % of respective year. Rather,an average of all the above 7 years gives a secular trend and a better estimate of theamount that is liable to be taxed. My view draws support from the case of KachwalaGems vs JCIT (SC), 288 ITR 10, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled as under:- “11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always acertain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try tomake an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgmentassessment, and should not act 52 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. totally arbit…

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…y view, it would be unwise to adopt the PBT % of respective year. Rather,an average of all the above 7 years gives a secular trend and a better estimate of theamount that is liable to be taxed. My view draws support from the case of KachwalaGems vs JCIT (SC), 288 ITR 10, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled as under:- “11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always acertain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try tomake an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgmentassessment, and should not act 52 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. totally arbit…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
Section 250Section 69A

…ew, it would be unwise to adopt the PBT % of\nrespective year. Rather,an average of all the above 7 years\ngives a secular trend and a better estimate of theamount that\nis liable to be taxed. My view draws support from the case of\nKachwalaGems vs JCIT (SC), 288 ITR 10, wherein the\nHon’ble Apex Court ruled as under:-\n“11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment\nassessment, there is always acertain degree of guess\nwork. No doubt the authorities concerned should try\ntomake an honest and fair estimate of the income even\nin a best judgmentassessment, and should not act\n51 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\ntotall…

Showing 1–20 of 332 · Page 1 of 17

...
Kachwala Gems v. JCIT (288 ITR 10) — Cited in 332 Judgments | BharatTax