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 367,154 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…ses or conjecture, is supported by the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 726 (SC); (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC): (iii) Lalchand BhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC): It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid reasons and explanations, the values mentioned in the Table No. 1, cannot be taken as actual investment by the assessee- Company to compute any undisclosed investment. We also furnish herewith the details of land owned by the assessee-…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…ses or conjecture, is supported by the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 726 (SC); (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC): (iii) Lalchand BhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC): It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid reasons and explanations, the values mentioned in the Table No. 1, cannot be taken as actual investment by the assessee- Company to compute any undisclosed investment. We also furnish herewith the details of land owned by the assessee-…

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…ses or conjecture, is supported by the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 726 (SC); (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC): (iii) Lalchand BhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC): It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid reasons and explanations, the values mentioned in the Table No. 1, cannot be taken as actual investment by the assessee- Company to compute any undisclosed investment. We also furnish herewith the details of land owned by the assessee-…

M/S. Aashish Auto Components Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1767/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1767/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Aashish Auto Components Income Tax Officer, Manufacturers Pvt Ltd., V. Corporate Ward -1(2), No.86, Govindappa Naicken Street, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, George Town, Chennai – 600 001 Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaca-5586-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…osit with proper evidences and prayed for setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and delete the additions u/s.68 of the Act entirely. 6. The Ld.AR also relied on the following judgments: - Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. Commnissioner of Income- tax [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) -DCIT Vs. M.C. Hospital, [2022] 142 taxmann.com 122, (Chennai ITAT) - R. S. Diamonds India (P.) Ltd Vs. ACIT, [2022] 145 taxmann. Com 545 (Mumbai - ITAT), :-10-: ITA. No: 1767/Chny/2024 - Smt. Durga Devi Mundhra vs ITO in ITA No. 1228/Chny/2023, dated 25.04.2024. In light of the above, the ld.AR prayed for considering the same and allow th…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuddalore vs. Cholaji Kanniyalal, Kamaraj Street, Villupuram

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

ITA 1674/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1674/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 51/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Cholaji Kanniyalal, Income Tax, V. No. 191, Kamaraj Street, Circle -1, Villupuram, Cuddalore – 607 002. Tamil Nadu – 605 602. [Pan: Aaepk-4555-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit Department By : Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, CA
Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 68

…(i) Sales as per books vs. 40 VAT returns and (ii) Purchases as per Books vs. VAT returns. Party wise purchases made during the year (Quantity 41-79 and value wise) 7. Case Law Relied upon Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. Commissioner of 80-93 Income-Tax [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) ACIT vs. Chandra Surana [2023] 149 Taxmann.com 94-104 379 (Jaipur ITAT) DCIT vs. Mangal Bullion P. Ltd ITA No.1407/Mum/2021 105-111 & ITA No.331/Mum/2022 (Mumbai ITAT) (2023) DCIT vs. M.C. Hospital, [2022] 142 Taxmann.com 122 112 – 123 (Chennai ITAT) R.S. Diamonds India (P.) Ltd., vs. ACIT, [2022] 145 124-125 Taxmann.com 545 (Mumbai-ITAT) ACI…

Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jinendra Mahendrakumar Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4523/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, DR
Section 115BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM, & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A. No.4523/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) ITO-20(2)(1), Jinendra Mahendrakumar Shah, Flat No. 2404, 14th Habitat Floor, Room No. 304, Piramal Chambers, Dr. S S Roa Vs. One Avighna Park, B-Wing, Marg, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Currey Road, Mumbai-400012. PAN : BAWPS6992Q Appellant) : Respondent) Revenue/ Appellant by : Shri Jigar Mehta, DR Respondent /Assessee by : Shri Himanshu Joshi, AR Date of Hearing : 22.11.2024 : 26.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal b…

Carma Arts and Crafts Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1409/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Carma Arts & Crafts Assistant Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax, H-5/11, Mehrauli, Behind Vs Circle-5(2), Qutub Minar, Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110030 Pan-Aaack0623L Assessee Revenue Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.11.2024

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 68

…fied bank notes were tenderable because the business hours of the Assessee were from 11 AM to 8 PM. 6.1 It is a settled proposition of law that the suspicion howsoever strong may be cannot substitute the facts and no addition can be made based on suspicion. * 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 7. That the addition so made by the AO Rs. 682909 u/s 68 of the Act is also not valid in law because she made the addition not based on actual facts but on the basis of some imaginative formula by working out the average monthly sales. Your Honour would appreciate that in a business, there is no fixed monthl…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Devine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

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

…ial, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material iii) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 4(1)(1), Mumbai Ankur Agrawal 2401, 2402, Anmol Pride, Opp. Vs. Patel Auto Petrol Pump, Off Sv Road Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400062. Pan: Akopa 7201 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…icer has been rightly deleted. 17.4 In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Discovery Estates Pvt Ltd reported in 356 ITR 0159, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT in 37 ITR 288 wherein the Court disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessment on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the "notorious practice" prevailing in trade circles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held: the appellant could not be tarred with the same brush as every arhatdar and grain merchant who might have been indulging in smuggl…

ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 27/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicialmember Acit, Circle 22(2), Vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 2366, Satya Chambers, Rajguru Road, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan: Aalcs8254L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar, Ca Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

…ITR 416 (SC); (vii) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All.)(HC); 14 Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.)(HC); (ix) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat.)(HC); (x) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). 12. With regard to disallowance of salary expenses, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has submitted before the ld. CIT (A) that Satya Prakash Sharma is the key employee and backbone of the business and has been getting high salary in previous years which duly accepted by the Revenue. He brought to our notice page 35 of the pape…

Nitin Vijay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur

ITA 12/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…r taxation, there is no scope for making any addition under section 68 of the Act in respect of deposits made into the bank account”. 2.29. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 [PB 198-213] in which judgment is delivered in the background of promulgation of High Demonetization Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946, with effect from January 12, 1946. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down a ratio that accepting an explanation or books in part and rejecting the same for the remaining part is not justified. It is submitted…

Maa Sharada Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 586/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Maa Sharada Enterprise,……..………….……Appellant Talbabnda Jugberia, Ghola, North 24-Parganas, Pin Code No.700110, West Bengal [Pan:Aatfm5656M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex-Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 07, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

…he nature of the business of assessee, vis-à-vis compulsion for accepting the cash. He thereafter put reliance upon the following decisions:- (i) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. -vs.- CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (All.), approved in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram - vs.- CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); (ii) Asstt. CIT -vs.- Dr. Anil Kumar Verma [IT Appeal No. 274 (Agra) of 2013 dated 04.09.2019; (iii) See Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Co. (P) Ltd. - vs.- DCIT [2020] 114 taxmann.com 492 (Mad.). 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the additions have been made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 69A by treating such…

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Kota, Rajasthan

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…021 (2) TMI 737 - ITAT GAUHATI NILKANTHA SAHA VERSUS ITO, WARD-MORIGAON 32 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT k) 2021 (1) TMI 837 - ITAT GAUHATI NURUL ISLAM VERSUS ITO, WARD-2, NAGAON) l) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)) 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, 1946 as unexplained money on mere conjecture and surmise of the Revenue Authorities. The relevant facts of the said case a…

ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vs. Maa Raktdantika Contractors and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 437/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 28(2)(i)Section 68

…of disbelieving the same on conjectures and surmises. Suspicion how so ever grave cannot be the form of prove. Their Lordships in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- Civil Appeal No. 679 and 680 of 1957, order dt.14.05.1959 37 ITR 288 have held accordingly. The latest pronouncement of this court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 151summarises the position thus: "We are aware that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact finding tribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact I.T.A. No.384/Lkw/2020 I.T.A. No.437/Lkw/2020 9 af…

M/S. Maa Rakltdantika Contractors and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Range-4, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 28(2)(i)Section 68

…of disbelieving the same on conjectures and surmises. Suspicion how so ever grave cannot be the form of prove. Their Lordships in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- Civil Appeal No. 679 and 680 of 1957, order dt.14.05.1959 37 ITR 288 have held accordingly. The latest pronouncement of this court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 151summarises the position thus: "We are aware that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact finding tribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact I.T.A. No.384/Lkw/2020 I.T.A. No.437/Lkw/2020 9 af…

Satyam Minerals Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur

ITA 938/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69

…Act. Reliance is placed on the following judgment of Pilani Industrial Corporation Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITA No. 1606/Del/2023dated 29.04.2024 wherein following the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 it was held as under :- “9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 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 whi…

Aditya Baheti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 562/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Khandelwal, C.A ( V.H.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148

…e, which price is supported by official quotation issued byMagadh Stock Exchange, therefore, there can not be any reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale transaction of the shares. It is settled position of law by the decisions reported in 26 ITR 776(SC), 37 ITR 288(SC), 63 ITR 449(SC) and 1 SOT90(Mum)(supra)tosupportthatsuspicionevenstrongenoughcannottake the character of evidence. Consideringthefactthattheshareswereallottedtotheassessewhichwerekept in demat account, the decision was made in favour of assesse. The AO has doubted the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee of M/s. Tarbo Te…

Florence Agro Farms, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-23(1)(6), Mumbai

ITA 2093/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 10(1)Section 68

…e Learned CIT(A) further erred in not considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT/1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) and decision of Hon. Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co Ltd. (220 Taxman 122) that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. 13. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd, 49 ITR 723 fo…

Florence Agro Farms, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2092/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. J B Bairagra/Ms. Rupa Nanda
Section 10(1)Section 68

…os. v. CIT (1959) CIT/1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) CIT/1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica TR 271 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) and decision of Hon. 37 ITR 288 (SC) and decision of Hon. Kolkata High Court in the case Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co Ltd. (220 Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co Ltd. (220 Taxman 122) Taxman 122) that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion that no addition can be made on the bas…

Tara Soni, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 13/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could not be based on background of 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 ITO might be observed that the notoriety for smuggling food grains and other commodities to Bengal by country boats acquired by 'S' and t…