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 366,470 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

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1812/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…e Assessing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 ofthe report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the n…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1813/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 69B

…ng Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. ' 14. In La/chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar af!d Orissa (1959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various propabilities which weighed with the income-tax Officer we may observe that…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1807/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…Assessing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed wtth the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1803/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 698

…Assessing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. . 14. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa (L959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court, disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessments on rnere suspicion and surmise . or by taking note of the notoribus practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the variotts probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA/1815/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 698

…ssessing Officer rnay be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investrnent. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 14. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. Commtssioner of Incotne Tax, Bihar and Orissa (1959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of rnaking additions in the assessments on lnere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed wtth the Income-tax Officer we may observe that th…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA/1816/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 698

…Assessing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understaternent of the investment. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 14. In Lalchand Bhagat Arnbica Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa (1959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessrnents on lnere suspicion and sunnise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the yarious probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that th…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA/1970/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 698

…Assessing Officer rnay be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investrnent. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessrnents on rnere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that th…

CIT vs. Dinesh J Ain

ITA/1818/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…e Assessing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities M'hich weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1805/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…e Assessing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 ofthe report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the n…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA/1814/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…essing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : “Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe tha…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA/1809/2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…Assessing Officer rnay be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 14. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. Commisstoner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa (L959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1816 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698

…Assessing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understaternent of the investment. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 14. In Lalchand Bhagat Arnbica Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa (1959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessrnents on lnere suspicion and sunnise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the yarious probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that th…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1969 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 13Section 260ASection 69B

…essing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1803 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698

…Assessing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. . 14. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa (L959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court, disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessments on rnere suspicion and surmise . or by taking note of the notoribus practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the variotts probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1812 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…e Assessing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 ofthe report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the n…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain HUF

ITA - 1667 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698Section 732

…Assessing Officer rnay be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investrnent. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessments on lnere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various proUoUtttties which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the…

CIT vs. Lata Jain

ITA - 1811 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 698

…Assessing Officer rnay be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1815 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698

…ssessing Officer rnay be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investrnent. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 14. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. Commtssioner of Incotne Tax, Bihar and Orissa (1959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of rnaking additions in the assessments on lnere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed wtth the Income-tax Officer we may observe that th…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1970 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 260ASection 698

…Assessing Officer rnay be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investrnent. but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 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 assessrnents on rnere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that th…

CIT vs. Dinesh Jain

ITA - 1971 / 2010HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 69B

…essing Officer may be relaxed in cases where there is evidence to show understatement of the investment, but evidence to show the precise extent thereof is lacking. 14. In La/chand 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 assessments on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailing in trade circles. At page 299 of the report, it was observed as follows : "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that…