Lalitha Jewellery Mart v. DCIT

39 ITR 425Reported decision#9747 most cited

What is Lalitha Jewellery Mart v. DCIT authority for?

An addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be made on the basis of mere suspicion.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Also referred to as

Lalitha Jewellery Mart v. DCIT · 39 ITR 425 · section 68 · cash credit addition · unexplained money · addition on suspicion · identity of creditor · creditworthiness · assessment details

Judgments citing Lalitha Jewellery Mart v. DCIT

The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kollam vs. M/S.Sabari Enterprises P. Ltd, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 360/COCH/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2015-2016

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kollam vs. M/S.Sabari Enterprises P. Ltd, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 359/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kollam vs. M/S.Sabari Enterprises P. Ltd, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 358/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

Sri.P.Sunil Kumar, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 355/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kollam vs. Sri.P>Sunil Kumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 354/COCH/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kollam vs. Sri.P>Sunil Kumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 352/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

The ACIT, Kollam vs. Sri.P.Sunilkumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 351/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kollam vs. Sri.P.Sunil Kumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 350/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

The Central Circle, Kollam vs. Sri.P.Sunil Kumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 349/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

The ACIT, Kollam vs. Sri.P.Sunilkumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 348/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…

The ACIT, Kollam vs. Sri.P. Sunil Kumar, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 347/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…Rajendran & Ors. Vs. ACIT I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 (291 ITR 178), Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jaykumar Bakliwal (366 ITR 217) and Madras High Court in the case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart vs. DCIT (39 ITR 425) wherein it was held that an addition u/s. 68 cannot be made on suspicion. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (37 ITR 288) wherein it was held that additions in the assessments cannot be made on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the notorious practices prevailin…