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

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)

…at) (5) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (6) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (all) (7) Anantpur Kalpana Vs ITO (2022) 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bang Trib) (8) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs CIT 287 ITR 0547 (SC) (9) Lakhmichand Baijnath vs CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC) 6 Jitendra Nemichand Gupta Vs ITO (10) Naliniknat Ambalal Mody Vs CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC) (11) CIT Vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. 273 ITR 1 (SC) (12) CIT Vs Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (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)…

M/S Nikhil Estate P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT Central Circle (3) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 28/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

…e of Lovish Singhal & Others vs ITO [Appeal No 143/ Jodh/ 2018]; • Hon’ble Jaipur 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’ble Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Page 17 of 30 Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 30 In the instant case search u/s 132 of the Act took place on 15.12.2016. Since, the search in the case of appellant was carried out on 15.12.2016 and additions were made consequential to se…

M/S Supremo India Ltd, Indore vs. The Ait Central 3, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 29/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 69ASection 69B

…e of Lovish Singhal & Others vs ITO [Appeal No 143/ Jodh/ 2018]; • Hon’ble Jaipur 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’ble Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Page 17 of 29 Supremo India Ltd. Page 18 of 29 In the instant case search u/s 132 of the Act took place on 15.12.2016. Since, the search in the case of appellant was carried out on 15.12.2016 and additions were made consequential to search,…

Shri Rajendrabhai Ramanlal Desai, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 293/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69A

…se of Lovish Singhal & Others vs ITO [Appeal No 143/ Jodh/ 2018]; • Hon'ble Jaipur 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'ble Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Considering the submission made and decisions referred, it is undisputed that the assessee is having only source of income from Trading and Manufacturing of jewellery. The additional income was offered on account of difference in the stock a…

Samir S Mehta, Maharashtra vs. CIT (A)-4, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.42/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Samir Shantilal Mehta, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, 1003, 10Th Floor, Sagardeep, South Surat. Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpm5453D (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vartik Choksi & Biren Shah, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…3/ Jodh/ 2018]; • Hon'ble Jaipur bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs Ramnarayan Borla [Appeal No 482/ JP/ 2015 dt 30-09-2016]; ITA.42/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Samir Shantilal Mehta • Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhmichand Baijnath Vs CIT as reported in 35 ITR 416; • Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Considering the submission made and decisions referred, it is undisputed that the assessee is having only source of income from Trading and Manufacturing of jewellery. The additional income was offered on account of difference in the stock a…

Thakordas Parekh & Sons, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…ee further submits that amendment made in Section 115BBE is not applicable in assessees case.To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon on the following case law:  Dr. T.A. Qureshi vs. CIT 287 ITR 547 (SC)  Lakhmichand Baijnnath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC)  Nalinikant Ambalal Mody vs. CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC)  CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. 273 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs. Shilpa dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj)  J.K. Chokshi vs. ACIT Tax Appeal No.149 of 2003 (Guj)  Green Associates vs. PCIT -Tax Appeal No.1199 of 2018 (Guj)  DCIT vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. 329…

DCIT, Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Krihna Kumar Verma, Indore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 185/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 69ASection 69B

…2018]; 10ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma • Hon’ble Jaipur bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs RamnarayanBorla [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’ble Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Therefore, firstly the AO erred in totality by applying amended provisions of section 115BBE in the case of appellant. Furthermore, search and survey action in the case of appellant were carried out on 28.09.2016 and the appellant made volun…

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…n seized formed part of the stock-in-trade of the assessee, it follows that the seizure and confiscation of such stock-in-trade has to be allowed as a business loss. Loss of stock-in-trade has to be considered as a trading loss." • Lakhmichand Baiinaih v. CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC) It has been held by Honourable Supreme Court 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. It was also observed that as the credits were found in the business accounts of the assessee and the explanation as to how the amounts came to be received was reje…

ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2022[ABUPK2500L]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…of the cash on hand for a such a large number of 30 Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur. days. That, no doubt, is highly suspicious; but the decision of the Tribunal must rest not on suspicion but on legal testimony.” 9) Lakhmi chand Baijnath V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC).) Case Law paper Book page 208-211 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 10) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Ram Tandon Vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 ordained as…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 68

…nation notes would have been held as part of the cash on hand for a such a large number of days. That, no doubt, is highly suspicious; but the decision of the Tribunal must rest not on suspicion but on legal testimony.” 9) Lakhmi chand Baijnath V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC).) Case Law paper Book page 208-211 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 37 Shri Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur. 10) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Ram Tandon Vs.…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ination notes would have been held as part of the cash on hand for a such a large number of days. That, no doubt, is highly suspicious; but the decision of the Tribunal must rest not on suspicion but on legal testimony.” 10) Lakhmichand Baijnath V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC).) (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 208-211) 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 11) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Ram Tandon Vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 ordained…

Bhima Jewellers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/15/2021HC Kerala25 Aug 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERSFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 115Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…e absence of any satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the creditor, it can be said that the credit is not a business income. Referring to the decisions of the honourable Supreme Court in Lakhmichand Baijnath v CIT MANU/SC/0063/1958 (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC), in which it was found that it is not unreasonable ITA No.15 of 2021 -14- to infer that the addition made under section 68 is receipt from the business of the assessee, and also relying on the decision of this court in Annamala Reddiar v. CIT MANU/KE/0120/1963 [1964] 53 ITR 601 (Ker), the Tri…

DCIT (Central)-2, Indore vs. Punjab Retail (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/IND/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agrawal, CA & Shri PankajFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

…se of Lovish Singhal & Others vs ITO [Appeal No 143/ Jodh/ 2018]; • Hon'ble Jaipur 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'ble Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Considering the submission made and decisions referred, it is undisputed that the appellant is having only source of income from Trading and Manufacturing of jewellery. The additional income was offered on account of difference in the stock…

Dhani Ram, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2817/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…the case of Shri Sourabh Kumar, New Delhi vs., ITO, Ward-46(4), New Delhi vide ITA.No.113/Del./2020 order dated 24.06.2021 and various other decisions. 4.1. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhmichand Baijnath vs. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that when the amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of J.K. Chokshi vs., ACIT vide Tax Appeal No.149/ 2003 order dated…

Sri K.Ramesh Reddy (HUF), Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/BANG/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2002-03 Shri. K. Ramesh Reddy, Huf, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.144, 10Th Cross, Indiranagar I Stage, Circle -1(2)(2), Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaghk 4712 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…lows: 12. The rationale for the introduction of Section 25(A) in the Indian Income Tax Act. 1922 which corresponds to Section 171 of the Income Tax Act,1961, the Apex Court in the case of LAKHMICHAND BAIJNATH vs. COMMISSOINER OF INCOME TAX reported in (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC) at Pg 421 has held as under: "When the assessee was Undivided no assessment could be made thereon at the time of the assessment it had become divided because at that point of time, there was no undivided family in existence which could be taxed, though when the income was received in the year of account the family was joint, nor could the ind…

Oberoi Motors, Ambala vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3513/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kantassessment Year : 2013-14 Oberoi Motors, Vs Acit, C/O-Rajiv Goel & Central Circle, Karnal. Associates, 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana Pan-Aaafq5401H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh.Rohit Goel, Ca Respondent By Ms. Pramita M.Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2021

Section 133ASection 68

…buttress the contentions that there is no infirmity into the findings of authorities below. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmichand Baijnath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that under the identical facts, in the case of M/s. Kirtiman Cements Packaging Industries Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA No.2777, 2778/Del/2017 order dated 15.05.2018 relating to Assessment Years 2012- 13 & 2013-14 wherein the Tribunal was pleased to allow set off all the losses which were denied by the…

Oberoi Motors, Ambala Cantt vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 3512/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 147

…s already recorded in the books of accounts and therefore it would be unreasonable to treat the same as not falling under any of the head of income, more particularly in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of LukhmichandBaijnath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC) wherein it was held that in case an amount is found credited in the books of accounts of the business, it would not be unreasonable to treat the same as business income. Ld. AR further submitted that in the case of the sister concern, namely, Kirtiman Cement and Packaging Private Limited, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2777 an…

Sri. S. Krishnappa (HUF), Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 603/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Shri S. Krishnappa (Huf), Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Circle – 7(1), C. V. Raman Nagar Post, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaphs 8136 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Counsel Revenue By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-4, Bengaluru, Dated 20.01.2011 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. In The Course Of Hearing, Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted List Of Dates & Synopsis Of 24 Pages & In Particular, Our Attention Was Drawn To Page 10 Of The Said Synopsis Para 26 & It Was Submitted That As Per Ground Nos.3 & 4 Raised By The Assessee Before The Tribunal, This Is The Issue Raised By The Assessee That The Huf Was Not In Existence When The Assessment Proceedings Have Been Conducted & The Assessment Order Has Been Passed On Huf & Therefore, The Entire Proceedings Are Rendered Null & Void & It Should Be Held That The Assessment Order Is Bad In Law On The Facts & Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 148

…ge 5 of 7 12. The rationale for the introduction of Section 2,5(A) in the Indian Income Tax Act. 1992 which corresponds to Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, the Apex Court in the case of LAKHMICHAND BAIJNATH vs. COMMISSOINER OF INCOME TAX reported in (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC) at Pg 421 has held as under: “When the assessee was an Undivided no assessment could be made thereon f at the time of the assessment it had become divided because at that point of time, there was no undivided family in existence which could be taxed, though when the income was received in the year of account the family was joint, nor could th…

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

…has been credited in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, it can be implied that these receipts are in the nature of business receipts. This view is supported by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmichand Baijnath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416 where sums found credited in the books of account of the assessee were treated as business profits Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Margttret's Hope Tea Co. Ltd. 201 ITR 747 and Mansfield and Sons vs. CIT 48 ITR 254. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court observed :- ITA No.910 & 1187/Kol/2019 A.Y. 20…

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