Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT

395 ITR 235High Court2017#3431 most cited

What is Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer rightly treats differences in stock found during a survey as unaccounted stock. Additions to income should not be made solely based on additional income offered.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT · Section 132 · Section 143(3) · Section 144B · Section 44AD · survey · stock inventory · unaccounted stock · addition to income · additional income offer

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT

AMIT KUMAR PAL,THRISSUR vs. WARD 1(1) THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 676/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2022-23 Amit Kumar Pal .......... Appellant House No. 31/321/1, Vakayil Road St. Marys Chappal, Chiyyaram, Thrissur [Pan: Bnhpp5857P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Anoop V. Francis, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Doing Job Work As Goldsmith. The Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 Was Filed On 30.12.2022 Declaring Income Of Rs. 6,82,690/-. The Search & Seizure Operations U/S. 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Were Conducted In The Business Premises Of M/S. Peeyar Exporters In The Month Of March, 2022. During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operations Certain Digital Evidences Were Found

For Appellant: Shri Anoop V. Francis, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 44A

…ollowing judgments: - i) CIT v. MAC Public Charitable Trust [2022] 450 ITR 368 (Madras) ii) Roshan Lal Sanchiti v. PCIT [2023] 452 ITR 229 (SC) iii) Smt. Konda Sanjeeva Rani v. ACIT [2024] 169 taxmann. Com 591 (Telangana) iv) PCIT v. Avinash Kuma Setia [2017] 395 ITR 235 (Delhi) v) M/s Peeble Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO (2017- TIOL-238-SC-IT) vi) M/s Peeble Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO (2017- TIOL-188-HC-MUM-IT) vii) Bannalal Jat Constructions (P) ltd. v. ACIT [2019] 264 Taxman 5 (SC) 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel fo…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. NANITHA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 504/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Dy. C. I. T Vs. Nanitha Constructions Central Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aagfn1630D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Contract Works. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2019-20 On 20.09.2019 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,41,98,240/-. In This Case, A Survey Operation U/S 133A Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted On 22.3.2019 During The Course Of Which The Assessee Had Admitted Additional Income Of Rs.6.00 Crores Voluntarily To Cover Up The Discrepancies In The Books Of Account. However, In The Return Of Income The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…he statement, therefore, the learned CIT (A) without considering the statement as a whole was not justified in deleting the addition. 10. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia reported in (2017) 395 ITR 235, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has stated where the assessee has surrendered certain income by way of declaration and withdraw the same after two years without any satisfactory explanation, it could not be treated as bonafide and, hence, addition would sustain. Page 7 of 14 ITA 504 of 2022 Nanitha Constructions…

Showing 120 of 35 · Page 1 of 2