Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

37 ITR 288Supreme Court of India1959#106 most cited

What is Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT authority for?

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

570

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT · unexplained cash deposit · cash credit section 68 · unexplained money section 69A · rejection of books of account section 145(3) · acceptance of books · sufficiency of cash balance · assessment addition · cash book balance · mercantile system of accounting

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 147Section 132Section 143(2)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)dumb documentsrejection of books of accountsection 69bsection 292csection 145(3)section 34loose paperson-moneysection 10(38)penny stockaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

SHRISHIL DHULAPPA HONAVAD ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

ITA 2347/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

…ed in 2018 Taxman 95. 8.4 The Ld. AR also contended that the addition has been made merely on suspicion and conjectures without any evidence, which is not permissible in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 288. 8.5 It was further argued that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground of non-appearance without properly examining the detailed statement of facts already filed along with Form No. 35. Hence, . Page 6 of 9 the order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. 9. On the contrary the le…

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…d any material/ evidence in support of such allegation. Any assessment of income in the hands of the assessee has to be made on the basis of material/ evidence and not merely on basis of mere suspicions and surmises [refer: Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 (SC); Dhakeshwari Cotton: 26 ITR 775 (SC)] 32.2 It is also settled law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of hard proof and that assessment under the Act has to be made on the basis of mere material/evidence and not on the basis of assumptions/presumptions [refer J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC), Assam Tea Co. vs. ITO…

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…d any material/ evidence in support of such allegation. Any assessment of income in the hands of the assessee has to be made on the basis of material/ evidence and not merely on basis of mere suspicions and surmises [refer: Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 (SC); Dhakeshwari Cotton: 26 ITR 775 (SC)] 32.2 It is also settled law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of hard proof and that assessment under the Act has to be made on the basis of mere material/evidence and not on the basis of assumptions/presumptions [refer J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC), Assam Tea Co. vs. ITO…

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KALAWATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING P LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 134/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…t brought on record any evidence to prove that the transactions entered by the assessee which are otherwise supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 held that assessment could not be based on background of suspicion and in absence of any evidence to support the same. The Hon'ble Court held: ITA No.: 134/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalawati Investments & Trading P. Ltd. "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the ITO might be observed that the notoriety for smuggling fo…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 17,25,00,000/- and deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be upheld and grounds raised by the revenue may kindly be rejected. 46 It is thus prayed that appeal filed by…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 17,25,00,000/- and deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be upheld and grounds raised by the revenue may kindly be rejected. 46 It is thus prayed that appeal filed by…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 17,25,00,000/- and deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be upheld and grounds raised by the revenue may kindly be rejected. 46 It is thus prayed that appeal filed by…

ITO, WARD-30(5), DELHI vs. RAGHAV GOEL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department of revenue is dismissed and

ITA 734/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarito Ward 30(5) Vs. Raghav Goel Room No. 1210, 12Th C-156, East Of Kailash Floor, E-2 Block, Civic Delhi – 110065 Centre, J.L. Marg Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aixpg7355H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…that the above figures were taken from the table on the basis of statement of profit and loss by the assessee. The statements were duly verified by independent auditors report. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 has held that when entries in books of account in regard to cash balances were held to be genuine, there was no escape from conclusion that assessee had offered reasonable explanation as to source of all high denomination notes which it encashed on 19th January 1946 and it was not open to ITAT to accept genuineness of those books and accept assess…

MYSTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 5222/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalι.Τ.Α. No.5222/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2011-12 Mystical Pvt Ltd Constructions A 603, A1 Akbar Bldg, Pe Road, Momin Nagar, Jogeswari (W), Mumbai - 400102 Pan - Aaccn5191N (Appellant) Vs Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1) Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Simran Dhawan A/W Mr. Ravi Gantara Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 06.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)Section 274

…idation though independent enquiries. It is a trite law that suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) (SC).In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Batham V. State of MP, AIR 2002 SC,it was held that mere suspicion, however strong or probable it maybe, is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate a charge; there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and this basic and g…

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 52. Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that no addition can be made taking into account notorious practice prevalent in the similar trade. The relevant findings vide para 14 and 15 are as under: “……….. 14. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa (1959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of making additions in the ass…

MADHURI JAISWAL,GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), GWL, GWALIOR, MADHYAPRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 217/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 68

…eipt of fee. If the patient is to be admitted in the hospital added to the total income of assessee under section 68 of the IT Act1961 which is absolutely not justified and illegal as well as not accordance with law. 1. Lalchand Bhagat Atma Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288- if the entries in the books of account on regard to the balance in the ROKAR are held to be genuine logically enough there is no escape from conclusion n that assessment has offered reasonable explanation. 2. CIT Vs Laxmandad Bhatiya (1996) 217 ITR 878- where the tribunal has recorded a finding of facts that cash balance of the assessee was suffi…

DY. CIT, INCOME TAX DEPTT. vs. NIVAYA RESOURCES PVT. LTD., GUJRAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/DEL/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2017] Dy. Cit, Aayakar Bhawan Vs. Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. Haryana 211, World Trade Centre, Karnal Shamalkha Sayajigunj, Vadodra, Vadodra Gujarat 390020 Pan No.Aaica32981E Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.75/Del/2025 (In Ita No.953/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2017] Nivaya Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Aayakar Bhawan 211, World Trade Centre, Haryana Shamalkha Sayajigunj, Karnal Vadodra, Vadodra Gujarat 390020 Pan No.Aaica32981E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 68

…ant law would have come to determination in question - Held, yes 9.3 While adjudicating Ground No.2, I have held that the books of account have been wrongly rejected by the AO. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) has held: Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition to income - Assessment year 1946-47 - Assessee carried on extensive business in grain as merchant and commission agent - Assessee maintained its books of account according to mercantile system and there were maintained in its cash books two accounts: one showing cash ba…

OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRE CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 49/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

…and without any findings of fact against the 15 assessee. In the case of Omay Salay Mohammed Sait (37 ITR 151), it was held that additions on the basis of conjectures, suspicion and surmises would not be sustainable. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram (37 ITR 288), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that assessment could not be based in the background of the suspicion and in the absence of any evidence supporting the same. By taking support of these decisions, the assessee opposed extrapolation by Ld. AO based on Tally Data where bank entries were recorded on both sides of the cash book without any increase…

MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, VILLAGE MANSOORWAL, TEHSIL ZIRA HEAD OFFICE, OLD CANTT ROAD, FARIDKOT,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 48/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

…and without any findings of fact against the 15 assessee. In the case of Omay Salay Mohammed Sait (37 ITR 151), it was held that additions on the basis of conjectures, suspicion and surmises would not be sustainable. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram (37 ITR 288), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that assessment could not be based in the background of the suspicion and in the absence of any evidence supporting the same. By taking support of these decisions, the assessee opposed extrapolation by Ld. AO based on Tally Data where bank entries were recorded on both sides of the cash book without any increase…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, TEHSIL ZIRA, FARIDKOT -151203, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 463/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

…and without any findings of fact against the 15 assessee. In the case of Omay Salay Mohammed Sait (37 ITR 151), it was held that additions on the basis of conjectures, suspicion and surmises would not be sustainable. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram (37 ITR 288), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that assessment could not be based in the background of the suspicion and in the absence of any evidence supporting the same. By taking support of these decisions, the assessee opposed extrapolation by Ld. AO based on Tally Data where bank entries were recorded on both sides of the cash book without any increase…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, QUILA CHOWK

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 193/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

…and without any findings of fact against the 15 assessee. In the case of Omay Salay Mohammed Sait (37 ITR 151), it was held that additions on the basis of conjectures, suspicion and surmises would not be sustainable. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram (37 ITR 288), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that assessment could not be based in the background of the suspicion and in the absence of any evidence supporting the same. By taking support of these decisions, the assessee opposed extrapolation by Ld. AO based on Tally Data where bank entries were recorded on both sides of the cash book without any increase…

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 366/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…tently held by various Hon’ble Courts that there must be some matter more than their suspicion to support the assumption made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. We find force from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) wherein it was held as under – “The mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single trans…

KASIVISWANATHAN MEDICAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. DCIT, CORPROATE CIRCLE-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.: 1989/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kasiviswanathan Medical The Deputy Commissioner Of Agencies Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, Kuvarpalayam Road, Corporate Circle – 1, East Veli Street, Madurai. Madurai – 625 009. [Pan: Aafck-4486-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CA
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…ation clearly establishes that the cash deposited into banks was fully explained, sourced from legitimate business receipts, and duly recorded in the books of account. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 88) (SC) aptly apply in this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the books of :-7-: ITA. No: 1989/Chny/2025 account are accepted as genuine, the explanation regarding the source of cash cannot be partly accepted and partly rejected without cogent evidence. In the present case the books of account are not rejected, entries are supported by…

DEVEN CHAUDHRY,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…ekha Banerjee and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, 49 ITR 112 (S.C) Therefore, the addition sustained is contrary to law and liable to be deleted. 20. Similar view was adopted in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram reported as (1959) 37 ITR 288 (S.C) “Where, however, the fact finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, the Court is entitled to interfere. A finding on a question of fact is…

SUDHIR CHAUDHRY,MATHURA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1(3)(1),, MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…kha Banerjee and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, 49 ITR 112 (S.C) Therefore, the addition sustained is contrary to law and liable to be deleted. 20. Similar view was adopted in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram reported as (1959) 37 ITR 288 (S.C) “Where, however, the fact finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, the Court is entitled to interfere. A finding on a question of fact is…

Showing 1–20 of 570 · Page 1 of 29

...