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.

How many judgments cite Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT?

570 judgments on BharatTax cite Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 132.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288)

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…n 68 of the Act needs to be deleted. Page No. | 53 ITA NO. 1564& 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Sr.No. Citation Observation 1. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram The Hon'ble Court decided the matter in favour of v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), assessee on the ground that it was clear on the record that the appellant maintained its books of account according to the mercantile system and they were maintained in its cash books showing the cash balances. The books of account of the appellant were not challenged by the Assessing officer. If the entries in the books of account were genu…

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

…hich was unexplained. Thus as per above explaination the provisions of above section 69A are not applicable to the assesse and the issue for applicability of section115BBE of the Act also does not arise. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) honourable SC decided the matter in favour of assessee on the ground that it was clear on the record that the appellant maintained its books of account according to the mercantile system and they were maintained in its cash books showing the cash balances. The books of account of the appellant were not challenged by the Assessing officer. If…

Bani Medical Enterprises, Amritsar vs. Principal Commisioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ned any issue or not..................” “..............The assessee had no control over the way the assessment order was drafted." 4.3 The assessee further relied on the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ramvs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288.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 balances f…

Shri Devender Hans, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 847/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…se laws relied by the Senior DR are not applicable to the present case He also placed reliance judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court to support his contention viz in the cases of CIT vs Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. 159 ITR 78, Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 & CIT v Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349. 4. The ld. counsel drawing our attention towards pages 273 to 285 of assessee paper book and submitted that the assessee successfully demonstrated that during FY 2008-09 the assessee received Rs. 2 lac on 15.04.2008 and Rs. 13,50,000/- on 29.04.2008 from the Shri Ved Pal against agreement to sale of his plo…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…ing decisions: i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 30. 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 tha…

Array Land Developers P. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 381/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (C.A)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143

…sheets did not have any legal sanctity and could, at best, be described as an offer from prospective sellers and not confirmation of any payment. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambika vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that no assessment could be made on suspicion. In the absence of any evidences, no addition could be made on assumptions. Another fact brought to the notice was that there was no place for signature of the assessee in any of the loose sheets. Without any registration, the documents would not have any legal sanctity under Regis…

Array Land Developers P. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 380/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (C.A)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143

…sheets did not have any legal sanctity and could, at best, be described as an offer from prospective sellers and not confirmation of any payment. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambika vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that no assessment could be made on suspicion. In the absence of any evidences, no addition could be made on assumptions. Another fact brought to the notice was that there was no place for signature of the assessee in any of the loose sheets. Without any registration, the documents would not have any legal sanctity under Regis…

Array Land Developers Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 379/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (C.A)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143

…sheets did not have any legal sanctity and could, at best, be described as an offer from prospective sellers and not confirmation of any payment. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambika vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that no assessment could be made on suspicion. In the absence of any evidences, no addition could be made on assumptions. Another fact brought to the notice was that there was no place for signature of the assessee in any of the loose sheets. Without any registration, the documents would not have any legal sanctity under Regis…

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)

…of cash balance in the hand of the Appellant, the AO cannot disbelieve a part of such cash balance as being not of specified denominations, when the books are not rejected. The same has been upheld in the Case Law of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288(SC). v) Additionally, when Cash is deposited on different dates, the Assessing officer cannot make any adverse inference to make the addition on the presumption that cash declared consists of only Rs. 1000 or Rs. 500 Notes. The same has been upheld in the case laws as below.  Narendra G. Goradia v. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (HC)  CIT v. Assoc…

Pravina Navin Dedhia, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1701/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Maulik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…arrived at was due to suspicion which could not take the place of proof but based on many surmises and conjectures reliance cannot be placed. 8.9. Similar ratio was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 288 (SC). 8.10 In the case CIT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd., reported in 224 ITR 422, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that when purchase and sale of shares are effected through share brokers, their particulars are furnished and the payment is made by account payee cheque the transaction cannot be 8 A.Y. 2012-13 Pravina Navin Dedhia dou…

ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata vs. Joydeb Kundu, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…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 11 AY: 2017-18 Joydeb Kundu speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that…

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…he Hon’ble Supreme 300 – 301 Fibers Limited taxmann.com 173 Court of India PCIT vs. Himachal (2018) 98 The Hon’ble High Court of 302 Fibers Limited taxmann.com 172 Delhi Argument:- No addition merely by reference to notorious practice:- Lalchand Bhagat (1959) 37 ITR 288 The Hon’ble Supreme 303-318 Ambica Ram vs. CIT Court of India CIT vs. Discovery TS-63-HC-2013(Del) The Hon’ble High Court of 319 – 327 Estates P. Ltd Delhi Argument:- No addition merely by referring to the surrounding circumstances CIT vs. Bedi & Co. (1998) 230 ITR 0580 The Hon’ble Supreme 328 – 332 Pvt. Ltd. Court of India Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2665/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…as discount. The observations of the AO are in the nature of mere suspicion. It has been held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), by the Apex Court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. The AO writes that basis and justification for discount of each of the 1600 cases having not been given, the reply is not verifiable with reference to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…as discount. The observations of the AO are in the nature of mere suspicion. It has been held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), by the Apex Court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. The AO writes that basis and justification for discount of each of the 1600 cases having not been given, the reply is not verifiable with reference to…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chandra Sehgal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

ITA 3205/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 80I

…uchers were produced and the Ld. AO did not point out any specific defect. Disallowance in an arbitrary manner is prohibited in law and cited the decision of apex court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288. 8.8 The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee produced complete books of accounts and vouchers before him which he examined with reference to ledger accounts of the above heads of expenses and supporting vouchers were also test checked by him. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that similar disallowances made by the Ld. AO in AY 2006-07 have been de…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

ITA 325/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 80I

…uchers were produced and the Ld. AO did not point out any specific defect. Disallowance in an arbitrary manner is prohibited in law and cited the decision of apex court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288. 8.8 The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee produced complete books of accounts and vouchers before him which he examined with reference to ledger accounts of the above heads of expenses and supporting vouchers were also test checked by him. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that similar disallowances made by the Ld. AO in AY 2006-07 have been de…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Subash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

ITA 3054/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 80I

…uchers were produced and the Ld. AO did not point out any specific defect. Disallowance in an arbitrary manner is prohibited in law and cited the decision of apex court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288. 8.8 The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee produced complete books of accounts and vouchers before him which he examined with reference to ledger accounts of the above heads of expenses and supporting vouchers were also test checked by him. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that similar disallowances made by the Ld. AO in AY 2006-07 have been de…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…nd Brothers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 271], v. LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa [1959 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 288], vi. New Ambadi Estates (Private) Limited vs. State Of Tamil Nadu [1991 (3) TMI 10 - Madras High Court; Other Citation: (1993) 200 ITR 64], vii. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2001 (7) TMI 70 - Gujarat High Court; Other Citation: (2002) 253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and othe…

Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…nd Brothers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 271], v. LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa [1959 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 288], vi. New Ambadi Estates (Private) Limited vs. State Of Tamil Nadu [1991 (3) TMI 10 - Madras High Court; Other Citation: (1993) 200 ITR 64], vii. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2001 (7) TMI 70 - Gujarat High Court; Other Citation: (2002) 253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and othe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…nd Brothers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1959 (5) TMI 11 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 271], v. LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa [1959 (5) TMI 12 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: (1959) 37 ITR 288], vi. New Ambadi Estates (Private) Limited vs. State Of Tamil Nadu [1991 (3) TMI 10 - Madras High Court; Other Citation: (1993) 200 ITR 64], vii. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2001 (7) TMI 70 - Gujarat High Court; Other Citation: (2002) 253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and othe…

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bani Medical Enterprises, Amritsar vs. Principal Commisioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

Shri Devender Hans, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

Array Land Developers P. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai

Array Land Developers P. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2(2), Chennai

Array Land Developers Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

Pravina Navin Dedhia, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata vs. Joydeb Kundu, Kolkata

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chandra Sehgal, New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Subash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata