Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. v. DCIT

399 ITR 425High Court2017#9752 most cited

What is Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

If an investment is explained with proper documents, no addition can be made to income, as suspicion alone is not proof. Provisions of Section 69B apply only when investments are not recorded in books of account.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lalitha Jewellery Mart · Section 69B · Section 68 · unexplained credit · explained investment · documentation · proof · suspicion · books of accounts · identified individuals · lender's source

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Issues it is cited on

genuineness of the transactionsection 132section 15section 143personsection 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomebusinessdocument

Judgments citing Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. v. DCIT

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 902/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

…taken from identified individuals, demanding proof of the lender's source is unjustified. 16.4 He also referred to Hon’ble Supreme Court rulings like CIT vs. Lovely Export P. Ltd in 11993 of 2007 and Madras High court ruling in Lalitha Jewellery Mart v. DCIT 399 ITR 425, where the courts held that if the investment is explained with proper documents, then no addition can be made. He emphasized that the provisions of section 69B of the Act are applicable only when investments are not recorded in the books of accounts. In the present case, the appellant did not maintain books of accounts, and hence the provisions…

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 901/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

…taken from identified individuals, demanding proof of the lender's source is unjustified. 16.4 He also referred to Hon’ble Supreme Court rulings like CIT vs. Lovely Export P. Ltd in 11993 of 2007 and Madras High court ruling in Lalitha Jewellery Mart v. DCIT 399 ITR 425, where the courts held that if the investment is explained with proper documents, then no addition can be made. He emphasized that the provisions of section 69B of the Act are applicable only when investments are not recorded in the books of accounts. In the present case, the appellant did not maintain books of accounts, and hence the provisions…

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 621/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e Investigation Wing. This reveals spectacular disregard to an AO's duties in the remand proceedings which the revenue seeks to inflict upon the assessee in this case. No substantial question of law arises. M/s Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 399 ITR 425 (Madras) (HC) The findings of Hon'ble High Court at Para 41 & 42 are as under:- "41. However, the main theme, upon which, the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal proceeded to discredit the investors of the assessee is completely erroneous. They are both looking for proof beyond doubt. They are proceeding on an element of suspicion that the…

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…own under the bridge and earlier judgements namely Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254), Metachem Industries (245 ITR 160), CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. (394 ITR 383), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (307 ITR 334), Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. (399 ITR 425), ACIT vs. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (87 taxmann.com 216) and CIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (84 taxmann.com 58) will have no application in the present case where the partner company is a shell company, shown meager income for the year under reference, returned income is low vis-a-vis the quantum of investment, sources of invest…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics & Packaging (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 737/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. ACIT (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) PAN No.AALCA7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Vyanktesh Plastics ACIT (Central), Vs. and Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) PAN No.AAACV6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Famous…

ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Ariba Foods (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 736/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. ACIT (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) PAN No.AALCA7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Vyanktesh Plastics ACIT (Central), Vs. and Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) PAN No.AAACV6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Famous…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Famous Vanijya (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 773/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. ACIT (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) PAN No.AALCA7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Vyanktesh Plastics ACIT (Central), Vs. and Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) PAN No.AAACV6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Famous…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…who have given their statements contrary to such public documents. ” - Further that law relating to section 68 is succinctly analyzed with great clarity in recent decision of Madras high court in case of Lalitha Jewellery wherein entire conundrum is explained 399 ITR 425 : SLP dismissed by Apex court recently. That gist of aforesaid decision is encapsulated below for sake of ready reference: 2. The following substantial questions of law have been framed while admitting TCA.No.435 of 2013 on 25.2.2014 : "(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in confirming the assessment of share capital contributions as un…

Jasamrit Creatins P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Creations P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 6(3)(2) Flat No. 901, Building ‘B’ Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Vs. Ashok Tower, Near Itc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hotel, Parel, Mumbai 400017 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aabcj8511H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anju KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 133(6)Section 68

…e of and relying upon the aforesaid rulings in CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. (394 ITR 680) and CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (333 ITR 100), was pleased to delete the disputed addition.  In the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (399 ITR 425 (Mad) the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that the assessee cannot upon its investors to disclose all such business transactions they carried on in the immediate past and as to how much they made from their respective business enterprises. The assessee cannot call upon its investors to prove their good business sense in investing in the assessee-c…

Pnn Steel Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2601/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: 12.02.2018
Section 131(1)Section 68

…e decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports, the addition was liable to be deleted. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of M/s.Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd., reported in 399 ITR 425 (Mad) as also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi)(HC) reported in 361 ITR 220. 4. The Ld.AR also filed a petition for admission of additional documents, wherein, it has been submitted that at the time of hearing, the assessee had filed only the Board Resoluti…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ndeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd for AY 2008-09 ITA No 5784/Mum/2011 dated 23.01.2014 ii. CIT Vs Creative World Telefilms Ltd 333 ITR 100 (Bom) iii. Arceli Reality Ltd Vs ITO AY 2007-08 ITA No6492/Mum/2016 dt 21.04.2017 iv. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT 399 ITR 425 (Mad) v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT AY 2004-05 ITA 1867/Mum/2012 dt 07.02.2014 vi. Principal CIT Vs M/S Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 66 of 2016 dated 10.04.2017 (Bom) 8. Per contra the learned D.R. relied heavily on the orders of the Authorities below. The learned D.R. submitted that in this case the assessee is not carrying…

Lalitha Jewellery Mart P. Ltd. v. DCIT (399 ITR 425) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax