Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

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

…(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…

Sanjay Taneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sanjay Taneja, Vs Acit, 198/1, Ramesh Market, Central Circle-18, East Of Kailash, Delhi New Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaept8805A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca, Harish, Ca, Neetu Jain, Ca & Mitika Chaudhary, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

…rlabhji reported in 211-1TR- 178 wherein at page 189, the Hon’ble Court has observed as under: “In Dhekeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Arnbica Ram V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), it has clearly been held 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 of proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment.” 21. In the case of D.A. Patel vs. DCIT (Mum) reported in 72 ITD 342 Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — Blo…

ITO, Ward 43(6), Delhi vs. Ankur Jain, Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward 43(6), Vs. Ankur Jain, New Delhi Bh-4, Delhi East, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Pan: Adkpj1885H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025

…if any by the assessee. Once, the A.O. accepts the books of accounts and the entries in the books of account are matched, there is no case for making the addition as bogus sales. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (S.C) held that the assessee maintained the books ot 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 the entries in the books of accounts are genuine and the balance in cash is matching with the books, it ca…

Balsons Jewellers, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2)(3), Meerut

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Balsons Jewellers, Income Tax Officer, 1, Abulane Chowk, Vs. Ward-1(2)(3), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Ayekar Bhawan, Near Bhaisali Ground, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aalfb8236G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…ing the A.Y. relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The Id. Counsel has also placed reliance on a number of judicial pronouncements on the proposition that addition u/s 69A of the Act cannot be made i.e. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PAT); DCIT Vs. M/s Karthik Construction Co. ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016. 10. After considering the facts as discussed above, we find the AO has failed to justify in applying section 69A to the case of the assessee when the assessee itself declared the cash sales in its return of income duly recorded in…