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 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 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

Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT - Central Circle, 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 2182/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar

Section 132

…judgments rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.862/2019 which dwells upon rejection of books in such circumstances. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. the CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) observed that where the books of accounts of the assessee were not challenged per se, the explanation offered by the assessee requires to be construed as reasonable and the decision of an authority based on misplaced suspicion, conjecture and surmises is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v.…

Jaluidanga Paschim Nasaratpur Samaby Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Bardhaman, West Bengal vs. Income Tax Oppficer, Ward-1(3), Burdwan

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2558/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Jaluidanga Paschim Vs ITO, Ward-1(3), Burdwan Nasaratpur Sambay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Vill : Jaluidanga, Post: Samudragarh, Dist: Purba Bardhaman-7135519 PAN No. :AABAJ 6381 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCA रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :…

Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed

ITA 5350/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Ito Ward– 8(1)(1) Vs. Stall No. 9A, Dadani Rizwan Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan, 124, M E S Marg, Zanda Galli Off, Maharshi Karve Road, Memonwada Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mubmai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aaepc3430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

…e otherwise by bringing sufficient material on record. The AO has not brought any adverse material on record except doubting the source. To support the contention of assessee, Ld. AR relied on following case laws:-  Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC),  ITO vs. R. S. Sibal [2004]269ITR429(Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC),  CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1969) 721 ITR 807 (SC),  Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PAT.),  Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj.),  CIT vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujrat High Court) T…

DCIT, C-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh vs. The Institution of Civil Engineers Society, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 52/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

…the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw Bros.v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannottake the place of evidence. 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lai Chand Bhagat Ambit-a Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) Considering the above arguments of the appellant as well as the legal position explained the disallowance of expenses on vehicles is difficult to be sustained. Thisis especially since the appellant has submitted all the details of the vehicles as well as the vehicle use. Further the AO has been unable to bring forth any evidence as to the per…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. Shri.Jagannathan Sekar, Chennai

ITA 1279/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

…1382 (v) A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 (x) It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch document is vague and dump document. No addition can be made on the basis of suck documen…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukkottai

ITA 1278/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Chennai. Opp.Smbm School, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), # 3/29, New No,3/40, Chennai. Muthupattinam, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), # 25, Sambasivam Street, Chennai. T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukottai

ITA 1276/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

Section 132(4)

…i Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch document is vague and dump document. No addition can be made on the basis of suck documen. (x…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. K. Rethinam, Dindigul

ITA 1275/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

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

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 705/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 306/CHD/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Dinesh Soin, 31, Garden Enclave, South City, Ludhiana. Vs The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADVPS6255P अपीलार्थी/Appellant & प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.704 & 705/CHD/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / A. Y. : 2010-11, 2011-12 Smt. Ginny Soin, Vs The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. 396, Civil Lines, Ludh…

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

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 704/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 306/CHD/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Dinesh Soin, 31 Garden Enclave, South City, Ludhiana. Vs The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADVPS6255P अपीलार्थी/Appellant , प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.704 & 705/CHD/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / A. Y. : 2010-11, 2011-12 Smt. Ginny Soin, 396, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Vs The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Lud…

Sh. Dinesh Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 306/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 306/CHD/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Dinesh Soin, 31, Garden Enclave, South City, Ludhiana. Vs The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADVPS6255P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.704 & 705/CHD/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / A. Y. : 2010-11, 2011-12 Smt. Ginny Soin, 396, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Vs The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Ludh…

Rajesswaran Sam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2489/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. Srinandan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…NY/2022 3. ITAT, Vizag Bench in ITO vs. Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana in ITA No.76/Viz/2021 4. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., [2022] 134 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi) 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT, [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) 6. ITAT, Chennai Bench in DCIT vs. M/s. Navaratna Maaligai, ITA No.801/CHNY/2023 :-8-: ITA. No:2489/CHNY/2024 7. ITAT, Chennai Bench in DCIT vs. M/s. D.Gem Mount in ITA No.782/CHNY/2023 8. ITAT, Bangalore Bench in Anantpur Kalpana vs. ITO in ITA No.541/Bang/2021 9. ITAT, Delhi Bench in DCIT vs. Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.352/Del/202…

Printography Systems (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6944/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarprintography Systems V/S. Assistant Commissioner (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. बनाम Of Income Tax, Circle – 13-D, Kurla Industrial Estate, 13(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Narayan Nagar Nss Road, Mumbai - 400020, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - Maharashtra 400 086, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp4900G .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah,CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani(Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…g the amount of Rs. 81,000 as concealed income of the assessee and consequently imposition of penalty was also not justified in this case.” P a g e | 7 A.Y. 2017-18 Printography Systems(India)Pvt. Ltd. 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 ofassessee 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 th…

Usha Hitesh Sanghvi, Girgaon S.O, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(5), Mumbai, Lal Baug

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6172/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…to another, addition cannot be sustained. It is a trite law that the suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference is made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (1959)37 ITR 288(SC). It is further contented that entire case of the revenue hinges upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought…

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 1529/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH a

Section 12ASection 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ceedings all the more vulnerable. In this relation assessee places reliance on some Supreme Court judgements, namely, (1) Dharkeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775, (2) Omar Salay Mohammed Vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 and (3) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288. 4. That the Indian Courts including the Apex Court have time and again held that action u/s.147 of the I.T. Act 1961 cannot be taken for reopening assessment if the information is wholly vague, indefinite, far-fetched and remote. The courts have also held that there must be a live link or close nexus between the material coming to the knowledge o…

Sandip Dohare, Gondia vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Gondia

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 533/NAG/2024[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

…of the books of accounts as such the Ld. AO was incorrect in making addition without rejecting the books of accounts. In this context the reliance is place on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288, wherein the Hon'ble court has held that when entries in books of account in regard to cash balances were held to be genuine, there was no escape from conclusion that assessee had offered reasonable explanation as to source of all high denomination notes which it encashed on 19th January 1946 and it was not open to ITAT to accept genuineness of th…

The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Limited, Kolkata vs. ADIT, Int. Tax., Kolkata

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2002[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga [1933] 1 ITR 94 (PC) CIT v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga [1933] 1 ITR 94 (PC) CIT v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga [1933] 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT [1959] 37 I Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) 41. We particularly find the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) in support We…

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Esplanade vs. Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited, Prince Baktiar Shah Road

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1310/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ng judicial decisions:- 70 ITR 407 (Cal.) Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co, Ltd. Vs. CIT In this case Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held as under:- "The fate of the assessee cannot be decided by the revenue on the basis of surmises, suspicions or probabilities." 37 ITR 288(SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram Vs. CIT In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "Assessment of income should not be made on the basis of assumptions, presumptions, surmises and suspicions." In view of the facts, circumstances and judicial decisions stated above the addition made of Rs. 29,91,00,000/- is liable to be deleted and we fully…

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Esplanade vs. Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited, Prince Baktiar Shah Road

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1309/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68