How many judgments cite Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT?

72 judgments on BharatTax cite Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT (35 ITR 416), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 69A, Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT

35 ITR 416Supreme Court of India1959#1570 most cited

What is Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT authority for?

When an amount is credited in business books, it is a reasonable inference and can be presumed to be a receipt from business. This principle helps determine the head of income and address unexplained cash credit issues under Section 68.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT · 35 ITR 416 · business books credits · receipts from business · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · deemed income · head of income · business income presumption · income tax assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 69A Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 69d section 40(b)set off of losses section 69b third party information surrender of income section 115bb preponderance of probability section 115b section 115bbe section 127 section 145(3)

Judgments citing Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT

Vijakumar Jagannath Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Office, Guj-C-1-104, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1985/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1985/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vijaykumar Jagannath The Income Tax Office Agarwal बनाम / Gujarat C-1-104 V/S. B-79, Sumel Business Park Circle-2(1)(1) Behind New Cloth Market Ahmedabad - 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 002 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aazpa 8345 В (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mitul A. Ruparayl, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Dated 27/09/2024, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18, Wherein The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Of Rs.30,26,460/- Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao") Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act"). 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Raised By The Assessee Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri Mitul A. Ruparayl, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 69A

…he PAN cards, however, Aadhaar cards with addresses were provided, discharging the primary burden of proof. The assessee, by way of written submission, relied on some judicial precedents in his support which are: i. ii. iii. Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC). Durga Fire Work v. ITO (ITA No. 383/Del/2024, ITAT Delhi). Shivam Industries v. ACIT (ITA No. 1612/Del/2021, ITAT Delhi). 4.1. Regarding the cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- the AR contended that such cash deposit in the personal savings account of the assessee held with Nutan Nagrik Bank during the demonetization period represents household sa…

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…hers vs ITO (Appeal No 143/ Jodh/ 2018); 46 Jagdish Kumar Arora • Hon’ble Jeipur bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs Ramnarayan Borla [Appeal No 482/ JP/ 2015 dt 30-09-2016), • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhmichand Baijnath Vs CIT as reported in 35 ITR 416,' • Hon'bte Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Prayer: In view of the above facts, circumstances of the case and legal position of law the higher rate of tax so charged i.e the excess demand so raised may kindly be deleted, the provisions of sec. 115BBE may kindly be held not to applica…

Prem Lata Pandya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 1471/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1471/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2019-20 Prem Lata Pandya बनाम Deputy Commissioner of 302, Raj Mension, D-299, Vs. Income Tax, Tulsi Marg Bani Park, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.:ACXPJ9951A निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Sh. S.L.Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 127Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…citing the following case-laws which support that income surrendered during search and survey has to be treated as “business income” more so when the ld. AO fails to point out any other source of income of the assessee. (1) Lakhmichand Baijnath Vs CIT (1959) 35 ITR 416 (Hon’ble Supreme Court) : The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the credits were found in the business accounts of the assessee and the explanation as to how the amounts came to be received was rejected, such credits can be treated as business income. (2) Daulat Ram Rawatmal Vs. CIT 64 ITR 593 (Hon’ble Supreme Court): When there is nothing on re…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Dhaneshbhai Parshottamdas Soni, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 179/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…its made by the appellant is from bogus transactions. The AO stated that cash I.T.A No. 179/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 ACIT Vs. Dhaneshbhai Parshottamdas Soni sales may be inflated but as held by supreme court in the case of Laxmichand Baijnath v. CIT; 35 ITR 416, that amount credited in business books can normally be presumed as business receipts. So it is clear all source of cash deposits are recorded in the books of the appellant. Once the sources are reflected in the books there is no question of unexplained cash credit as envisaged in section 68 of the Act. The Rajasthan High Court which is the jurisd…

Income Tax Officer - 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Dalichand Kapurchand Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2477/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito – 12(2)(1), Mumbai Dalichand Kapurchand Jewellers Private Limited Vs Shop No. 50/51, Gulab Baug, M.G. Road, Opp Railway Station, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan; Aaacd 8748 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.G. SakariaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

…t: Addition u/s 68 could not be made in respect of the amount which was found to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to them. "Further, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Lakhmichand Baijnath V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC) that "Amount credited in business books can normally be presumed as business receipt. When an amount is credited in business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business, If the explanation given by the assessee as to how the amounts came to be received is rejected by all the income-tax authorities as…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…siness income and the case laws relied upon by the AO is not applicable and the additional income declared by the assessee is not liable to tax as per the provisions of section 155BBE of the Act. 14. It is further stated that in Lakhmichand Baijnath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when an amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. Similar views have been taken in Daulatram Rawatmull vs. CIT 64 ITR 593, Mansfield & Sons vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 254, besides others. It is submitted that the unexplained stoc…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

Shanthilal Kishore Kumar, Chengalpet vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessee’s in ITA

ITA 410/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.409/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Mr. Prakash Chand Harish Kumar, The Acit, No.51, High Road, Chengalpet, Central Circle-3(3), Tamil Nadu-603 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aafpk 5543 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 12.08.2024

Section 133ASection 69B

…d to the Proprietor’s capital account in the form of profit and correspondingly the sundry creditors has been written off. In this context, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmichand Baijnath v. CIT 35 ITR 416, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when an amount is credited in the business books of the assessee, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is receipt from business about the excess stock found during the course of survey. In the present case, the assessee’s consistent stand about the excess stock found during survey which…

Prakash Chand Harish Kumar, Chengalpet vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessee’s in ITA

ITA 409/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

For Respondent: 12.08.2024

Section 133ASection 69B

ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 27/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicialmember Acit, Circle 22(2), Vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 2366, Satya Chambers, Rajguru Road, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan: Aalcs8254L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar, Ca Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

…tnam – Trib.); (iii) Charu Aggarwal vs. DCIT (2022) 140 taxmann.com 58 (Chandigarh – Trib.); (iv) Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bombay HC); (v) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat.)(HC); (vi) Lakhmichand Baijnath vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC); (vii) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All.)(HC); 14 Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.)(HC); (ix) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat.)(HC); (x) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). 12. With regard to disallowance of salary expenses, ld. AR for the assessee subm…

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Kota, Rajasthan

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…r the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] j) Lakhmichand Baijnath V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC).) Amount credited in business books can normally be presumed as business receipt. When an amount is credited in business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business k) CIT v/s. Kailash Jewellery House ITA No. 613/2010 decided by Delhi High Court on 09.04.2010 In the facts of above case cash of Rs.2…

Income-Tax Officer, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad vs. Kamleshbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 127/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…ncome. The Ld. CIT(Appeals), during the course of appellate proceedings took into consideration various details filed by the assessee and allowed the appeal of the assessee, in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhmichand Baijnath 35 ITR 416 (SC) held that when an amount is credited in business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. In the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores 276 ITR 549 (Orissa), the High Court held that for applying section 69 of the Act, the Assessing Officer must first ITO vs. Kamleshbhai Prajapati Asst.Year –2017-18 -…

Saket M Jain (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 314/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 24.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961

For Appellant: None(Adjournment Application-Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 250

…ing the addition of Rs.63,56,669/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Peak Credit wrongly applying the decisions in the case of Kalekhan reported in 50 ITR 1 and 3 I.T.A No.314/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. Saket M Jain(HUF) Lakhmichand reported in 35 ITR 416 though the facts in present case are distinguishable. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.48,383/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed interest on income tax refund. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal o…

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-1 Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…No 143/ Jodh/ 2018); • Hon’ble Jeipur bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs Ramnarayan Borla [Appeal No 482/ JP/ 2015 dt 30-09-2016), 33 Silver Wings Life Spaces vs DCIT, Kota • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhmichand Baijnath Vs CIT as reported in 35 ITR 416,' • Hon'bte Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Prayer: In view of the above facts, circumstances of the case and legal position of law the higher rate of tax so charged i.e the excess demand so raised may kindly be deleted, the provisions of sec. 115BBE may kindly be held not to applica…

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

…by the assessing officer. The Apex court further held that if the entries in the books of accounts are genuine and the balance in cash is matching with the books, it can be said that the assessee has explained the nature and source of such deposit. 19 [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC) Lakhmichand Baijnath The Hon’ble Apex Court held that Vs. CIT amount credited in business books is presumed as business receipt. When an amount is 17 SATISH CHAND GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR credited in business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. 20 ITANo.264/Hyd/ 2011 In the case of M/…

Manasi Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemanasi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd V. Dcit, Central Circle 3(4) Office No. 37, 97/101 Room No. 1915 Mumbadevi Diamond Premises Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Sheikh Memon Street Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002 Pan: Aabcm5354P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…ssment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment. Page No. | 10 Manasi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LakhmichandBaijnath V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC) has held that, when an amount is credited in business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. This inference also applies in the present case of the Appellant where he is into wholesale and retail business of gold jewellery and accordingly since the impugned cash sales were already offered to tax…

Shri Rajesh Sondhi, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the ground

ITA 188/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…eceipt. Only on failure of such exercise, it would be regarded as taxable under section 69 on the premises that such excess investment or asset or expenditure is unexplained and unidentified, satisfying the mandate of the law. • Lakhmichand Baijnath v/s CIT, 35 ITR 416(SC), Supreme Court Of India, in which it was held as under: 10. The position may thus be summed up : In the business accounts of the appellant we find certain sums credited. The explanation given by the appellant as to how the amounts came to be received is rejected by all the IT authorities as untenable. The credits are accordingly treated as bu…

M//S Mookambika Impex, Polur vs. DCIT Cental Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 299/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.299/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Mookambika Impex Dcit बनाम 24, Chintadripet Street, Central Circle-3(4), / Vs. Polur-606 803. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-3026-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

…ng stock at the business premises. It was part and parcel of regular business stock. The entire excess stock was business stock and nothing else. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Lakshmichand Baijnath vs CIT (35 ITR 416) which held that when an amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. The assessee submitted that entire stock was acquired out of income from jewellery business earned but not disclosed. The assessee had only one source of income since inception of the business, being je…

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

…supra). He then claimed that once investment in stock is considered as business outgoing then partners of the firm are entitled for higher remuneration as per section 40(b). Ld. AR referred to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in Lakhmichand Baijnath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416(SC) for the proposition that if credits are found in the business account of the assessee then the Income-tax authorities are entitled to treat the receipts as business receipts chargeable to tax and further 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 b…