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.

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 288)

Nathu Lal Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 859/JPR/2024[2011-2012]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 148Section 68

…n suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is a trite law that the suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). 5 SHRI NATHU LAL JAIN HUF VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held th…

Mangat Ram, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2564/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mangat Ram, Vs Ito, Vikas Bhatta Co., Bko Kiwana, Ward -1, Panipat, Haryana-132103. Panipat. Pan-Agipr2718L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Navjot Ahuja, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S.Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2024

Section 147Section 69A

…was no justification on the part of the AO to make an addition u/s 69A of the Act for the sum which is found recorded in books. 8.3 Reliance is placed on the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court decided the matter in favour of assessee on 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 offic…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ent order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736; Omar Salay Md. Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). In the present case, AO had not made any enquiry except quoting Question No. 10 and reply thereto. The AO, further, failed, to bring any material on record, even prima-facie to suggest earning of income from job work, by the appellant. Therefore, the AO, being quasi-judicial authority is not competent, to draw inferences in vacuum, without t…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ent order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736; Omar Salay Md. Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). In the present case, AO had not made any enquiry except quoting Question No. 10 and reply thereto. The AO, further, failed, to bring any material on record, even prima-facie to suggest earning of income from job work, by the appellant. Therefore, the AO, being quasi-judicial authority is not competent, to draw inferences in vacuum, without t…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ent order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736; Omar Salay Md. Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). In the present case, AO had not made any enquiry except quoting Question No. 10 and reply thereto. The AO, further, failed, to bring any material on record, even prima-facie to suggest earning of income from job work, by the appellant. Therefore, the AO, being quasi-judicial authority is not competent, to draw inferences in vacuum, without t…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ent order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736; Omar Salay Md. Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). In the present case, AO had not made any enquiry except quoting Question No. 10 and reply thereto. The AO, further, failed, to bring any material on record, even prima-facie to suggest earning of income from job work, by the appellant. Therefore, the AO, being quasi-judicial authority is not competent, to draw inferences in vacuum, without t…

Sukhpal Singh, Greater Noida vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3)(5), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1080/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

…ad received and the Assessee has no such intention to evade tax through which he has done his transaction, keeping these facts in mind, Request you to kindly consider the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. Human Probability test is one of the important test laid down by the highest court of India in order to check genuineness of the transactions entered into the books of account of the assesses. The Human Probability Test were…

A.G. India Retail Private Limited, Delhi, India vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cr Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 449/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…td in ITA No.1455/Del/2021 order dated 27.09.2023 iv) ITAT Delhi decision in Pilani International vs ACIT Circle 21(2) in ITA No.1606/Del/2023 order dated 29.04.2024 based upon Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288. v) ITAT Delhi in case of Durga Fire Work vs ITO Ward 59(8) in ITA No.383/Del/2024 order dated 03.07.2024 8 vi) Fine Gujaranwala Jewellers v. ITO in IT Appeal No. 1540(Delhi) of 2022 reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 340 (Delhi-Trib.) 17. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that on basis of undisputed fact that there is no SCN is…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

ITA 499/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

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

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…also stated in the case of Umacharan Shaw 8t Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. xxxiii). The Hon'ble Supreme Court way back 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: "The mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the ITO and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation…

Uma Shanker Sharma, Vrindavan, Mathura vs. ITO, Ward 2, ITO WD Two, Bharatpur

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

ITA 914/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…ssment rendering the re- assessment proceedings all the more vulnerable. In this relation assessee places reliance on (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. 3. 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…

Dhanuka Realty Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 202/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 56(1)Section 56(2)

…essment rendering the re-assessment proceedings all the more vulnerable. In this relation assessee places reliance on (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. 3. 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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving

ITA/8/2024HC Rajasthan13 Aug 2024

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MADAN GOPAL VYAS

For Appellant: Mr. S. Rajeswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 69Section 69A

…worked up its theory on the basis of the entries which obtained in these books of account. It was not, therefore, open to the Tribunal to accept the genuineness of these books of account and accept the explanation of the 6 (1954) 2 SCC 602 7 (1959) 37 ITR 288 Page 16 of 17 (Tax Case No.8/2024) appellant in part as to Rs. 1,50,000 and reject the same in regard to the sum of Rs. 1,41,000. (ii) that the circumstances relied on by the Income-tax Officer were matters of pure conjecture, suspicion and surmises: the notoriety for smuggling foodgrains was merely a background of suspicion and the appellant co…

Ram Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…on or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material is invalid and unsustainable in law. Reliance, for this proposition, is placed on the orders in the cases of Dhirajlal Giridharilal Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs,.ClT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC); Omar Salay Mohamad Sait Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC). I.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta 1.20 In view of the facts of the case and the case laws discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it is submitted that the addition of the sale proceeds deposited in the b…

Pawan Gupta, Kota vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Kota, Kota

ITA 252/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

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

…that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in the assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 SC). The suspicion or presumption, however strong it may appear to be true, needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in form of LTCG. In this connection, reference can be made to the judgment of Special Bench of Mumbai, ITAT in case of GTC Industries vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1,…

Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Kota

ITA 246/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

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

…that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in the assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 SC). The suspicion or presumption, however strong it may appear to be true, needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in form of LTCG. In this connection, reference can be made to the judgment of Special Bench of Mumbai, ITAT in case of GTC Industries vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1,…

Rajrajeshwari Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 245/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

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

…that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in the assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 SC). The suspicion or presumption, however strong it may appear to be true, needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in form of LTCG. In this connection, reference can be made to the judgment of Special Bench of Mumbai, ITAT in case of GTC Industries vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1,…

Vijay Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekvijay Kumar Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer Wz-34/1, Golden Park, Civic Centre Rampura, Delhi – 110 035 Minto Road, Delhi – 110 002 Pan No. Aafpj 6413 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv. Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Adv. & Shri Lakshya Budhiraja, C.A. Revenue By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

….862/2019 judgment dated 1st March, 2024 which dwells upon rejection of books in such circumstances. The learned Counsel, thereafter, referred to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram vs. the CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) to submit that in the similar facts the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 learne…

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 794/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.794/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Income Tax, No.4, Highways Road, Circle 1, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli 627 011. Tirunelveli 627 657. [Pan : Arupm 4796J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…evant material has influenced the authority in arriving at the conclusion of fact. 9. Therefore, in our considered view, the reasons given by the AO are devoid of merits. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 has opined 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 Tribunal to accept genuineness of those books and accept…

Mohammed Ibrabim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

…sions: (i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 26 of 62 (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decisi…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

…sions: (i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 26 of 62 (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decisi…

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

What is Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

Nathu Lal Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(2), Jaipur

Mangat Ram, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-1, Panipat

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Sukhpal Singh, Greater Noida vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3)(5), Gautam Budh Nagar

A.G. India Retail Private Limited, Delhi, India vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cr Building

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

Uma Shanker Sharma, Vrindavan, Mathura vs. ITO, Ward 2, ITO WD Two, Bharatpur

Dhanuka Realty Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd

Ram Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

Pawan Gupta, Kota vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Kota, Kota

Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Kota

Rajrajeshwari Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kota

Vijay Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre

ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Tirunelveli

Mohammed Ibrabim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore