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

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…in the apex court, adverting to the decision in the case of CIT (Central) v. Harprasad and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC), clarifies that income by definition also includes losses : (pages 312, 313) "7. In Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921, it was observed by this court that the law to be applied in income-tax assessments is the law in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. Before proceeding further, it will be necessary to focus on the definition of the expression 'income' in the statute. Section 2(24) defines 'income' which i…

Smt. Ritu Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 305/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA andFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.304 & 305/CHD/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Vs Smt. Ritu Soin, H.No. 31, Garden Enclave, South City-II, Ludhiana. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AJIPS8572L अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of P…

Sant Lal Aggarwal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

ITA 2243/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessmentyear:2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT iv) AIR 1977 SC 796 Krishnand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 Sant Lal Aggarwal v. ACIT 12 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted with respect since the appellant has made the cash deposits out of the sale of the properties as such, addition made by the learned AO purely on suspicion and without any materi…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…unity to show that that statement had no relevancy whatsoever to the case of the mill in question. Both the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal in estimating the gross profit rate on sales did not act on any material but acted on pure guess and suspicion. iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lai Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT The Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case 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 t…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…unity to show that that statement had no relevancy whatsoever to the case of the mill in question. Both the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal in estimating the gross profit rate on sales did not act on any material but acted on pure guess and suspicion. iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lai Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT The Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case 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 t…

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Satish Kumar, New Delhi

ITA 2447/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On Satish Kumar X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. Pan No.Aнерк4309В Shri Pramod Jain, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.08.2025 26.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per C.N. Prasad, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.03.2024 For The Ay 2017-18 In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period. 2. Ld. Dr Made The Following Submissions: (I) The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Trading Of Ghee & Oil Under The Proprietorship M/S Phool Chand Hari Kishan. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,58,120/- For The

Section 115BSection 68

…ITANo.2447/Del/2024 SATISH KUMAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 INCOME TAX OFFICER, Room No.217, 2nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by Revenue by सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement on SATISH KUMAR X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. PAN No.AНЕРК4309В Shri Pramod Jain, CA & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR 19.08.2025 26.…

Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited, Hardoi vs. ACIT, Sitapur

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

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

…ed and TCS return filed. Case Law Index S. No. Particulars 1. Hon'ble ITAT Visakhapatnam in the appeal of M/S Hira Panna Jewellers, ITA No. 253/VIZ/2020 2. Laxmi Rice Mills vs CIT reported in 97 ITR 258. 3. Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs CIT reported in 37 ITR 288 4. Shree Sanand Textiles Industries Limited ITA No. 995/Ahm/2014 dated 06/01/2020. 5. CIT vs Kailash Jewellery House in ITA No. 613 of 2020. Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 6. Vishal Export Overseas Ltd. In ITA No. 2471 of 2009 (Gujrat HC). 7. In the ITAT Bengalore Bench SMC-B, Anantpur Kalpana vs Income tax officer reported in 138 taxmann.com 141 (…

Ujjawal Sawera Samiti, Meerut vs. ITO Ward (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 5606/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20 Ujjawal Sawera Samiti, Vs. Ito Meerut -250001 Ward (Exemption) Pan No. Aaatu3244J Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 144B

…itled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Assessee filed the registration certificate (PB –page no. 22) before the Ld. NFAC which was never rejected. In the case of Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika 3 Ujjawal Sawera samiti vs. ITO Ward (Exemption) Ram v. CIT(Supreme Court)37 ITR 288 the court held that on no account should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicious , conjecture or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence or partly on suspicious, conjectures or surmises and if it does noting of that sort, its findings even though on ques…

Sri Sainath Associates, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT-6, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

…is no adverse observation from the auditors. The disallowance made is purely ad hoc which is not sustainable in view of the following judicial decisions: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [(1954) 26 ITR 775(SC)] + Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [(1959) 37 ITR 288(SC)] CIT vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. [(1992) 193 ITR 744 (Bom 1TO vs. Super Chemicals Distributors [(2005) 1 SOT 102 (Del)] S.A. Builders vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)] Further the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of JCIT vs. Haryana Steel & Alloys Ltd. (in 1.T.A No. 3735/DEL/99) held that no addition can be made on surmises and conjectur…

Sanjay Singal (HUF), New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 221/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 217 & 218/Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi Central Circle-1 Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEFPS6299L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 219 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil M…

Sanjay Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 220/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 217 & 218/Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi Central Circle-1 Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEFPS6299L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 219 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil M…

Aniket Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 219/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 217 & 218/Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi Central Circle-1 Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEFPS6299L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 219 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil M…

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 218/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 217 & 218/Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi Central Circle-1 Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEFPS6299L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 219 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil M…

Aarti Singal, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 217/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 217 & 218/Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi Central Circle-1 Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AEFPS6299L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 219 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil M…

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)

…s to be set aside. Again, an assessment based on mere conjectures, surmise or suspicion or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material is bad and unsustainable in law as per judicial pronouncement in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram -Vs-CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). This case has also been disposed off in the manner as stated above which is unsustainable in law. We would also like to submit before your honour that where the Assessing Officer refuses to apply his mind and makes the assessment as he likes, the assessment suffers from arbitrariness and so is bad in law as decided in M. Appukutty -Vs-STO (1…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &
Section 250Section 68

…o be doubted then it has to be shown that these are bogus sales and there is either no corresponding stock with the appellant or there were no such purchases against these sales. 5.3.13 The Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) has held that where the cash deposited was out of the books of account & cash book and where such books had not been rejected, then part addition for cash deposits was not sustainable: Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition to income - Assessment year 1946-47 - Assessee carried on extensive business in grain as mercha…

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…T. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: 1. 37 ITR 151 Omar Salay Mohammad Sait Vs. CIT 2. 26 ITR 736 Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT 3. 26 ITR 775 Dhakeshwari Cotton MillsLtd. Vs. CIT 4. 37 ITR 288 Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 5. 91 ITR 8 CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. It is further submitted that the expenditure being incurred in the day to day business activity and is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business for which the AO cannot walk into the shoe of the businessman to verify the necessity or the business ex…

ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Pradeep Patil, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2671/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2671/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Acit Vs Pradeep Patil Circle-49(1) 306, Gold Plaza Building, Room No. 1505, E-2 Block, Gurudwara Road, Dr.Spm Civic Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Baipp4632G

Section 143(3)Section 68

…Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) Asstt. CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd [2008] 118 TTJ 228: [2008] 11 DTR (Delhi) (Trib.) 281 DhirajLalGirdhariLalVs. CIT 26ITR 736 LalehandBhagatAmbika Ram VS. CIT 37 ITR 288 10.2.8 It is also seen that the total cash-sales during the year was Rs.10.27,91,367/- which was only 10,04% of the total sales made during the year i.e. Rs. 102,37,32,242/. As per the unusualy high cash sales during the period from 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 are concerned, the appellant submitted that in the month of October, he had started a newl…

Kamdhenu Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 478/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Kamdhenu Udyog Pvt. Ltd. C/O Subash Agarwal & Acit, Circle 12(1) Associates, Advocates Siddha Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Chowringhee Square, Vs. 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabck4503C Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi vs. Acb (India) Power Ltd

ITA/331/2025HC Delhi22 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14A

…(SC), a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication (see also : Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921 (SC) ; (1980) 1 SCC 139). An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section (see Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U. P. [1981] AIR 1981 SC 1274 ; (1981) 2 SCC 585. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Ex…