How many judgments cite Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT (97 ITR 258), spanning 2021 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT come up under?

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

Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT

97 ITR 258High Court1974#1642 most cited

What is Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee's books of account are accepted as genuine and reflect a cash balance sufficient to cover high denomination notes or other cash deposits, the source of such cash is deemed explained. In such cases, no addition can be made under Section 68 or Section 69A if the cash is duly recorded in the books and declared as income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT · Section 68 · Section 69A · unexplained cash · high denomination notes · genuine books of account · cash balance · source of funds · undisclosed income · addition · declared income · books of account accepted

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 69A Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)addition under section 68 section 44ab addition u/s 68 rejection of books of account section 31 section 145(3)preponderance of probability section 44a double taxation section 115bbe section 115bb

Judgments citing Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT

SANHATI INFOCOM SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), DURGAPUR., WEST BENGAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3022/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sanhati Infocom Services Private Limited Ito, Ward 2(4), Durgapur 2, Devi Choudhurani Path, Sail Aaykar Bhawan, City Centre Co-Operative Housing Colony, Vs. Durgapur-734101, West Bengal City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7843J Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Susanta Saha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69A

…he ld. AO to delete the addition, after holding that assessee has duly explained the source of cash deposit. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. Similarly, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Patna)[15-04-1974] has held that where the deposit of high value of demonization notes has been made out of cash available in the books of account no adverse view can be taken. The matter before the Hon'ble High Court was in relation to cash deposited during the earlier year demonetization. Sanhati Infocom Services Private Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 S…

JAINAM ORNAMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj2187M Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Section 145(3)Section 68

…assessee find support from a series of decisions. In the case of Md Umer Vs CIT (1975)101ITR 525(Patna ) it has been held that books of accounts cannot be rejected on the ground of non-production of cash memos. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258(Patna) it has been held that where the deposits of high value denomination notes have been made out of the cash available in the cash book. The matter was relating to earlier demonetization. The coordinate Jainam Ornament Private Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 bench in the case of f ITO Vs Senco Alankar (2022) 142 taxmann.com 578(kol-tri) held that where p…

IMRAN RAFIKBHAI MOTANWALA,JUNAGADH vs. ITO, WARD-3, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 217/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.217/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Imran Rafikbhai Motanwala The Ito, Ward-3 बनाम Shop No. 22/23, Sardar Patel Junagadh Marketing Yard, Dolatpara, Vs. Junagadh-362037 Pan : Aevpm6429E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Darshit Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.217/RJT/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Imran Rafikbhai Motanwala The ITO, Ward-3 बनाम Shop No. 22/23, Sardar Patel Junagadh Marketing Yard, Dolatpara, Vs. Junagadh-362037 PAN : AEVPM6429E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Darshit Ranpura, ld.AR राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 25/11/…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. LA SOLITAIRE JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradeputy Commissioner Of Vs La Solitaire Jewels Income Tax, Private Limited Room No. 316A, C. R. 2706, Bank Street Road, Building, I. P. Estate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- New Delhi 110005 Delhi Pan: Aaacl9483H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Mayankpatwari, Adv & Sh. Akashojha, Adv Revenue By Sh. Gouranga Chandra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 68

…my view, there is no question of treating the said deposits as unexplained cash deposit as opined by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld A.R relied on certain case laws which are relevant to the issue under consideration. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Patna), it has been held that, when books of account of the assessee were 3 R. S. Diamonds India Private Limited accepted by the revenue as genuine and cash balance shown therein was sufficient to cover high denomination notes held by the assessee, then the assessee was not required to prove source of receipt of said high denomination notes which…

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

…13.\nDetails of cash sale on which tax was collected and TCS return filed.\n\nCase Law Index\n\nS. No.\n\nParticulars\n\n1.\nHon'ble ITAT Visakhapatnam in the appeal of M/S Hira Panna\nJewellers, ITA No. 253/VIZ/2020\n\n2.\nLaxmi Rice Mills vs CIT reported in 97 ITR 258.\n\n3.\nLal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs CIT reported in 37 ITR 288\n\n4.\nShree Sanand Textiles Industries Limited ITA No. 995/Ahm/2014\ndated 06/01/2020.\n\n5.\nCIT vs Kailash Jewellery House in ITA No. 613 of 2020. Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court.\n\n6.\nVishal Export Overseas Ltd. In ITA No. 2471 of 2009 (Gujrat HC).\n\n7.\nIn the ITAT Bengalore Bench…

S R AGRO TECH,BEHROR vs. ITO, WARD, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1304/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 40Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No.1304/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 cuke The ITO M/s. S.R. Agro Tech G 27(D),Sotanala Industrial Area Vs. Ward-Behror Behror, Alwar 301 701 Behror LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: ACRFS 4370 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Re…

ITO WARD-23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SINGLA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1005/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

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

…s in the span of 4 hours, non availability of KYC documents for sales, non writing of tag of the jewellery to the sale bills, non-availability of CCTV footage for huge rush of public etc ... " Further in case of In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) Hon'ble Patna High court held as under: "It is, in my view, a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the hig…

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

ITA 431/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.S. Usmani, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…(Delhi Tribunal). Order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 68-73/2021, order dated 19.01.2022. 16 Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC). 17 Laxmi Rice Mills vs. CIT, 97 ITR 258 (Patna). 18 Chunnilal Tikam Chand Coal Co. Ltd., 27 ITR 602 (Patna). 19 Atish Singla vs. ITO Ward 43(7) in ITA No. 1185/Del/2021, order dated 06.04.2022, ITAT, Delhi. 20 Yash Ornaments (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.353/LKW/2020, order dated 23.07.2024, ITAT, Lucknow. 21 Harisons Diamond Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.1426/Del/2021, order dated 23.…

M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

ITA 351/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.S. Usmani, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

BALSONS JEWELLERS,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD - 1(2)(3), MEERUT

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

ITA 563/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Balsons Jewellers, Income Tax Officer, 1, Abulane Chowk, Vs. Ward-1(2)(3), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Ayekar Bhawan, Near Bhaisali Ground, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aalfb8236G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 44ASection 69A

…consideration. The Id. Counsel has also placed reliance on a number of judicial pronouncements on the proposition that addition u/s 69A of the Act cannot be made i.e. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PAT); DCIT Vs. M/s Karthik Construction Co. ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016. 10. After considering the facts as discussed above, we find the AO has failed to justify in applying section 69A to the case of the assessee when the assessee itself declared the cash sales in its return of income duly recorded in the audited books of accounts maintained by the as…

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

ITA 680/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…les. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal\ncorrectly found in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition made\nby CIT(A) of Rs.73.13 crores, under section 68 of the Act.”\n9.27 Similarly the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Lakshmi Rice\nMills (97 ITR 258) held as under:-\n\"It is a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed\nincome or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must\nfind sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at\nhand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the high\ndenomination notes subsequently dem…

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 153A

…the Act. by CIT(A) of Rs. 73.13 crores, under section 68 of the Act.” 9.27 Similarly the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Similarly the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Similarly the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills (97 ITR 258) held as under: held as under: ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016 16-17 to 2021-22) M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 73 :: "It is a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed "It is a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed "It is a fundamental principl…

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 153A

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 153A

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2558/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Jaluidanga Paschim Vs ITO, Ward-1(3), Burdwan Nasaratpur Sambay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Vill : Jaluidanga, Post: Samudragarh, Dist: Purba Bardhaman-7135519 PAN No. :AABAJ 6381 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCA रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :…

GAZALA HASSAN CHARIYARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed

ITA 5350/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Ito Ward– 8(1)(1) Vs. Stall No. 9A, Dadani Rizwan Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan, 124, M E S Marg, Zanda Galli Off, Maharshi Karve Road, Memonwada Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mubmai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aaepc3430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

…alchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC),  ITO vs. R. S. Sibal [2004]269ITR429(Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC),  CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1969) 721 ITR 807 (SC),  Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PAT.),  Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj.),  CIT vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujrat High Court) Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009,  ITO vs. Surana Traders (2005) 93 TTJ 875: (2005) 92 ITD 212 Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT,  Smt. Teena Bethala Vs ITO (ITA No. 1383/Bang/2019) dated 28.08.2019,  DCIT vs. M/s Karthik Construction C…

PRINTOGRAPHY SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6944/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarprintography Systems V/S. Assistant Commissioner (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. बनाम Of Income Tax, Circle – 13-D, Kurla Industrial Estate, 13(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Narayan Nagar Nss Road, Mumbai - 400020, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - Maharashtra 400 086, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp4900G .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah,CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani(Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…he Assessing officer. 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. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) Hon'ble Patna High court held as under: “It is, in my view, a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the hi…

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2002[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. JEWEL WORLD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 63/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.63/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Jewel World बनाम/ Income-Tax 5, Balaji Heights V/S. Circle-2(1)(1) Swagat Cross Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 Nr. Lal Bungalows Cg Road, Ahmedabad-380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aajfj 5833 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], Dated 06.12.2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Whereby The Cit(A) Deleted The Addition Of Rs.5,61,85,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. Asst.Cit Vs. Jewel World Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 69A

…epted unless proved otherwise. - CIT v. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd. [1996] 84 Taxman 146 (Cal.), where it was held that cash balances recorded in books cannot be treated as undisclosed income under Section 69A of the Act. - Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.), where it was held that when books of accounts are not rejected, and cash deposits align with business operations, they cannot be treated as unexplained money. 4.2. These rulings reaffirmed that cash sales cannot be disbelieved without proper evidence. 4.3. The CIT(A) observed that the AO’s approach effectively resulted in double taxation…

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

ITA 82/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

…the books of account. Accordingly, I set aside the Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45 lakhs." 20. Further, in the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) Hon'ble Patna High court held as under: "It is, in my view, a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the hi…

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4