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#1641 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 366,339 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

Nanjappa Umashanker, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 799/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prathik P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

…ested or utilized for any other purpose, it was not open to authority to make addition on basis that assessee failed to explain source of deposits. Also noteworthy is the much earlier decision of the Patna High Court in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Mills vs. CIT (97 ITR 258) which was also rendered in the context of an earlier instance of demonetization where their Lordships held that where the books of accounts of the assessee Sri Nanjappa Umashanker, Bangalore Page 13 of 17 were not rejected by the learned assessing officer and the cash balance was shown in the accounts of the assessee, there was no occasion to tax…

The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Sahana Jewellery Exports Privae Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 999/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.999/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Sahana Jewellery- Corporate Ward-2, Exports Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore. 600, Raja Street, Coimbatore-641 001. [Pan:Aaecs 7045 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 133(6)

…ssessee were not challenged by the AO, then, the entries in the books of accounts, needs to be considered as genuineness. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT reported in [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Patna). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the AO is erred in making additions towards cash receipts u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, and thus, directed the AO to delete addition made towards cash deposits u/s.68 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The Ld.DR, Shri R. Clement Rames…

Shri Hareshkumar Jayantilal Mahadevwala HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 248/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Hareshkumar Jayantilal I.T.O., Mahadevwala Huf, Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. 145, Sarjan Society, Parlepoint, Surat. Athwalines, Surat, Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaahh 8541 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

…h submission that the addition on account of unexplained cash credit is not warranted, relied on the following decisions: (1) Narendra G. Goradia HUF Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) CIT Vs. Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del) (3) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (4) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (5) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (6) S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1980) 48 CCH 619 (Kar) (7) Vinatha Madhusdan Reddy Vs ACIT (2018) 54 CCH 151 (Mum Trib) (8) R.S. Diamond (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum Trib) (9) ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charla & ors. 121…

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai vs. Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…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 v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Patna), it has been held that, when books of account of the assessee were 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 were legal tender at that time. In the…

Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

P L Steels Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia,CIT-DR

Section 68

…CIT(A) has accepted the major part of the cash deposits on basis of examination of all information about sales, purchases, stock etc. but to disbelieve part on the basis of mere assumptions is not justified. Long back 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 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 6 P L Steels P. Ltd. required to prove source of receipt of said high denomination notes which were legal tender…

Krishna Hiren Gujarati, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 3(2)(4), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Krishna Hiren Gujarati, I.T.O., C-24, Krishna Park Society, Opp. Ward-3(2)(4), Vs. Bhagat Nagar, Ved Gurukul Road, Surat. Surat-4 (Gujarat) Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

…n of Section 115BBE of the Act. To support her submission that the addition on account of unexplained cash credit is not warranted, relied on the following decisions: (1) Narendra G. Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (5) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (pat) (6) R.S. Diamond (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum Trib) On the wrong invocation/application of Section 115BBE of the Act, the ld. AR of the assessee re…

Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 246/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.246/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, No.237, Vikram Nagar Society, Ward – 3(3)(1), Near Trikam Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aimpb4673N (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…support of the above submission, assessee relies on the following decisions of the courts and tribunal: (i) CIT vs. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC) (ii) Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay)(HC) (iii) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) (HC) ITA.246/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Ushaben Vinodbhai Beladiya (iv) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (All.)(HC) (v) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (ALL.) (HC) It is submitted that the assessee receives rent income and the assessee has not got any other source of income and the assessees has always earned rent income…

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd., Bulandshahr

Accordingly the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and of assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

…jor part of the cash deposits on 14 1455 & 2006/Del/2021 basis of examination of all information about sales, purchases, stock etc. but to disbelieve part on the basis of mere assumptions is not justified. Long back 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 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 were legal tender at that time. 14. Th…

Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd., Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

Accordingly the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and of assessee is allowed

ITA 1455/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

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

…ddition considering it to be unexplained Reliance was placed on: - Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288(SC) Page No. | 9 Manasi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd -CIT v. Associated Transport (P) Ltd [1996] 84 Taxman 146 (Cal) - Lakshmi Rice Mills v CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat) 1. Since the sales and other records were in order, and because the cash sales were already offered to tax by Assessee, no separate addition u/s 68 can be made for depositing the cash which was realized from such sales. Reliance was placed on: - CIT Vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd [ITA No.2471 of 2009- Guj HC] CIT VS Kailash Jewellery House…

Sushil Kumar Jhabak, Bikaner vs. NFAC, Delhi / ITO, Ward-2, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ao With All Supporting Evidence But Ld. Ao Ignored While Relevant Facts So The Addition Made By Ao For Treating The Cash Deposit Rs. 5,50,000/- Unexplained & Charged Tax At A Special Rate Which Was Not Ought To So It Is Deserve To Be Deleted. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C. 3.The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Ground Sat Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143Section 234BSection 69A

…ks of accounts u/s 145(3), then the assessing officer cannot deny the source of cash deposit out of cash sales and thus he cannot make any addition u/s. 69 of the Act As I relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court . Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (PAT.) Wherein this judgment it was held that Whether when books of accounts of assessee were accepted by revenue as genuine, and cash balance shown therein was sufficient to cover high denomination notes held by assessee, assessee was not required to prove source of receipt of said high denomination notes which were legal tender at that time – He…

ITO 4(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zee Bangles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 815/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer 4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Zee Bangles Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 648, 6 Th Floor, 124, Mahavir Swami Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mandir, Zaveri Bazar, Road, Maharashtra Opp Kharakuwa Zaveri 400 020 Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacz6000G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Anil Kumar DasFor Respondent: Vimal Punamiya

Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

…consideration. The ld. 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…

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)

…5BBE of the Act, the assessee filed following case laws: (1) Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT (1992) 60 Taxman 248 (SC) (2) ITO Vs Ashwin d. Menta Tax Appeal No. 386 of 2000 (3) Narendra g. Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (4) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (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 6…

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…014-15 622070 2015-16 600560 2016-17 667210 8. The addition with regard to unexplained cash credit, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following case laws: (1) Narendra G Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (5) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat) (6) CIT Vs Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del) (7) S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1980) 48 CCH 0619 (Kar) (8) Vinatha Madhusudan Reddy Vs ACIT (2018) 54 CCH 0151 (Mum Trib) (9)…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

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

…arendra G. Goradia v. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (HC)  CIT v. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 212 ITR 417 (Cal) (HC)  CIT v. Laxmandas Bhatiya (1996) 217 ITR 878 (MP) (HC)  Bal Velbal v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 130 (SC)  Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (HC)  ITO V. ITAT (1998) 229 ITR 651 (Pa) (HC)  GK Padmaraju v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 412 (AP) (HC) vi) Additionally the Appellant would like to point out as under High Denomination Notes could not be treated as income from undisclosed sources just because it was not mentioned in books that cash balance consisted of High Denomination Notes, as…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…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 v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Patna), it has been held that, when books of account of the assessee were 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 M/s. Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. said high denomination notes which…

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

…er unless it does not match with the turnover disclosed before VAT Department. To support such submission, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the following case law:  Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom)  Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat)  Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All)  Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)  Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat)  CIT vs. Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del)  Atish Singla Vs Income Tax Officer [ITA No.1185/Del/2021 dated 06.04.2022  Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 115 taxmann.com 342 (…

Mohmmad Mukul, Malda vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(2), Malda

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

ITA 478/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 133(6)Section 69A

…reasons and findings on the issue. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT in [1959]37 ITR 288 (SC), decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Lakshmi Rice Mill vs. CIT in [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat) and 4 I.T.A. No. 478/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohmmad Mukul decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of R.S. Diamond India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2017/Mum/2021 for AY 2017-18 dated 26.07.2022. In all the above decisions, the common facts percolatingare that the cash was deposited during demonetization period and th…

Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1540/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate

Section 285BSection 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…