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 288Supreme Court of India1959#110 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 367,181 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 68 Section 115BBE Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 132 Section 143(2)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)dumb documents rejection of books of account section 69b section 292c section 145(3)section 34 loose papers on-money section 10(38)penny stock addition u/s 68

Judgments citing Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

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 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

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

…ks of accounts of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the order of AO without giving any cogent 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 d…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1540/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Fine Gujaranwala Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jewellers, 2630, Bank Street, Ward : 51 (3) Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. New Delhi. PAN No. AAEFF7028B ( RESPONDENT ) ( APPELLANT ) SA No. 244/Del/2022 (In I.T.A. No. 1540/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18)) M/s. Fine Gujaranwala Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jewellers, 2630, Bank Street, Ward : 51 (3) Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005. New Delhi. PAN No. AAEFF7028B ( RESPONDENT…

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…f income filed for the year. Since the income has already been offered for tax, the question of loss of tax to the revenue does not arise. The reliance is place in the following judicial pronouncement a) In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 [SC], the Hon’ble Apex Court decided the matter in favour of assessee of the ground that it was clear on the record that the assessee maintained the books of accounts according to the mercantile system and there was sufficient cash balance in its cash books and the books of account of the assessee were not challenged by the Assessing Officer. If t…

Smt. Ritu Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

…dment will take effect, it is such date that is relevant. If it is a substantive law, it can apply only prospectively. The normal rule is that the law which prevails is the law as on 1st April of the assessment year. In Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 120 ITR 921 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that what applies is the law of the assessment year for the income of the previous year. This principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC). 21. We, therefore, hold that the Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in…

DCIT Cent. Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Soma Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1824/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(3)

…f as decided by the Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC), 8 ITA.NO.1824/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) C.O.No. 46/MUM/2022 Soma Enterprises Ltd., Dhirajipal Giridhari Vs CIT 26 ITR 726 (SC), Lalchand Bhagath Ambica Ram Vs CTT 37 ITR 288 (SC). (iv) We submit that all purchases were genuine, payments were made through banking channel, works wer completed by utilizing these materials, No evidence was found that cash was returned by these parties to the appellant 5.1 Bogus sub contract work (i) M/s Soma Enterprise Limited (in short SEL) is the flagship company of the group. It was in…

Mesers Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

…sis of the surmises and conjectures ignoring the evidence produced before him. Thus, the addition made on the doubt, surmises and conjectures have no legs to stand and reliance is being placed on the following judgments: -. LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram vs CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) (i) (ii) ACIT V/s Claridges Investments and Finances P. Ltd. 2007 18 S0T (iii) CIT V/s DaulatramRawatmuti 1973 87 ITR 349 (SC) 4.8. The ld. Counsel in argument placed that the case laws as relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) are not applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessee has filed in paper book which is extracted as follows: Judgm…

H. N. Agri Service Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 94/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…icer is not at all justified in adding Rs. 15,59,845 towards undisclosed sales of the assessee and in applying section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 to the same. We delete the sustained addition of Rs. 15,42,000.” 4. Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRamVs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The relevant paragraph of the Hon’able Apex Court respectfully is reproduced as follows: - “A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 32 ITR 56 may also be noted in this context. The assessee there encashed 32 currency notes of Rs. 1,000 each on January 12, 1946, when the Hig…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu vs. M/S Hn Agri Serve Private Limited, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 150/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Kiran Bhanwarlal Jogani, Mumbai vs. ITO-5(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2441/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekiranbhanwarlaljogani, Vs. Ito-5(3)(3), 1101-A Wing, Pratiksha Room.No.564,5 Floor, Tower,Rs Nimkar Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400008. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acopj7976N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Rajkumar Singh.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Rajkumar Singh.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Richa Gulati.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…cord any evidence to prove that the transactions entered by the assessee which are otherwise supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could not be based on background of Kiran Bhanwarlal Jogani, Mumbai. suspicion and in absence of any evidence to support the same. The Hon’ble Court held: “Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the notoriety for smuggling food grains and other commodities to B…

Siddharth Developers, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 707/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesiddharth Developers V. Acit – Central Circle – 5(3) 205 Commerce House Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor 140 N.M. Road, Fort Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400023 Pan: Abffs4068J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Salil Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…nd nothing more which is impermissible [Ref: Dheeraj Lal Girdhari Lal v/s CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT- (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Md. Sheikh v/s CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC), Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika v/s CIT-(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), et. al.] 4. The Appellant further submits that in this case the Assessing Officer has not even raised a slightest doubt on the expenditure actually incurred. All the details of expenses, WIP, etc were famished to the Ld. AO during the course of assessment [Ref. Letter dated 12.12.2019 at pgs 164 to 167, letter dated 20.12.2019 at pgs. 189, 1…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Atr Warehousing Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 106/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 104, 105 & 106/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Atr Ware Housing (P) Central Circle-2, Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadca 2121 Q

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…e and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in holding that section 56(2)(viib) is not in operation for the entire assessment year ie for AY 2013-14 without considering the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Jute & Industries Limited vs. CIT reported in 120 ITR 921 (SC) (1979) wherein the Court has held that “it is a cardinal principle of the tax law that the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implications. 7. Any other ground of appeal that may arise at the time of hearing.” 8. With respect to Ground No.1, 2 & 3, the Learned Depa…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Atr Warehousing Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 105/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Atr Warehousing Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 104/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

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

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

…termed as black money. So taking into consideration the peculiar over all facts and circumstances discussed supra, it is directed that the addition of ₹ 12,41,704/- be deleted - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)) Case Law paper Book page 187-199 which is set in somewhat similar back drop in connection with treatment of the encashment of high denomination notes by the assessee therein on the promulgation of High Denomination Bank 26 Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur. Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946as unexplained money on mere conjecture an…

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

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 68

…termed as black money. So taking into consideration the peculiar over all facts and circumstances discussed supra, it is directed that the addition of ₹ 12,41,704/- be deleted - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)) Case Law paper Book page 187-199 which is set in somewhat similar back drop in connection with treatment of the encashment of high denomination notes by the assessee therein on the promulgation of High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946as unexplained money on mere conjecture and surmise of the Revenue Authorities. The…

Harish Sharma HUF, B-1, Patodiya Marg, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 318/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ubmitted that the various observations and conclusions drawn by lower authorities are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion, however, strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 – SC). The suspicion or presumption, however strong it may appear to be to true, needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in form of LTCG. In this connection reference can be made to the judgment of Special Bench of Mumbai, ITAT in case of GTC Industries Vs. ACIT 164 IT…

ITO-33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Vikram Baijnath Agarwal, Mumbai

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

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

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

…Unless the transaction is proved as sham or not bonafide, it is not open to the Tax authorities to disregard figures of transaction shown in the assessee's books of accounts". B. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 has held that correctness of accounts books cannot be doubted on suspicion conjectures and surmises. C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT,(1954) 26 ITR 775 has observe that the A.O is not entitled to make a pure guessand make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material atall. This pro…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1), Raipur vs. M/S Super Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd., Raipur

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

ITA 261/RPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit-4(1), Raipur Vs M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.13/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.261/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…figures, the addition cannot be made. If AO considered the figure 'of appellant unbelievable he cannot proceed to make an arbitrary addition on estimate but he must relate his estimate to some evidence. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the Assessing Officer while arriving at a conclusion indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and 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 l…