What is Mahakushal Poultries v. CIT authority for?

Accounts can be rejected only if cogent reasons are assigned by the Assessing Officer and it is not permissible to reject accounts based on a fall in GP rate or absence of a day-to-day stock register.

How many judgments cite Mahakushal Poultries v. CIT?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Mahakushal Poultries v. CIT (101 ITR 525), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mahakushal Poultries v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 145(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 133(6).

Mahakushal Poultries v. CIT (101 ITR 525)

Jainam Ornament Private Limited, Gaya vs. Income Tax Officer, Gaya

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj2187M Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

Section 145(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCJ2187M Assessee by : Shri Manish Rastogi, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR Date of hearing: 28.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 08.04.2025 for the AY 2…

Sushil Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle - 22(2), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3482/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sushil Kumar Vs. Acit Shreeram Overseas Circle-22(2) 5520, Bastiharpull C. R. Building, Singh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aalpk5068M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amit Goel, Adv & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac)’ For Short)- Delhi Dated 10/07/2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,50,99,530/- Made By The Ao 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)

…ooks of accounts or invoking the provisions of sec. 145 of the Act, the trading addition made by applying a higher GP rate is not 9 Sushil Kumar Vs. ACIT justified as has been held by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohd. Umer reported in 101 ITR 525. 15. It is seen from the record that the stock register was duly submitted by the Assessee on 05/11/2024 itself which has been acknowledgment by the A.O. in Page No. 4 of the Assessment Order.Further it is also found that at no point of time A.O. asked for copy of any purchase or sale bills. However, the Assessee vide reply dated 10/03/2024,…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…prop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. "The AO has nowhere invoked the provisions of section 145(1) and if the provisions are not invoked then the estimate of profit is not possible in the eyes of law. No defect of any kind was pointed out by the AO" III. Mohd. Umer v. CIT 101 ITR 525 (Pat) (Page 528) "No finding was recorded by the departmental authorities as to the unacceptability of the method and irregularity of the account kept by the assessee. It is well settled that in the absence of such a finding recorded by the authorities, the book results cannot be ignored or brushed aside." "In the absence of any such finding, the…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…prop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. "The AO has nowhere invoked the provisions of section 145(1) and if the provisions are not invoked then the estimate of profit is not possible in the eyes of law. No defect of any kind was pointed out by the AO" III. Mohd. Umer v. CIT 101 ITR 525 (Pat) (Page 528) "No finding was recorded by the departmental authorities as to the unacceptability of the method and irregularity of the account kept by the assessee. It is well settled that in the absence of such a finding recorded by the authorities, the book results cannot be ignored or brushed aside." "In the absence of any such finding, the…

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…99 (JP.) (MAG.) (DPB 4-8) "The AO has nowhere invoked the provisions of section 145(1) and if the provisions are not invoked then the estimate of profit is not possible in the eyes of law. No defect of any kind was pointed out by the AO" 4.4 Mohd. Umer v. CIT 101 ITR 525 (Pat) (Page 528) "No finding was recorded by the departmental authorities as to the unacceptability of the method and irregularity of the account kept by the assessee. It is well settled that in the absence of such a finding recorded by the authorities, the book results cannot be ignored or brushed aside." "In the absence of any such finding, the…

DCIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad Through L/H Shri Dilnawaz & Mrs. Mehrunissa, Muzaffarnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA 3555/Del/2017 is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue in ITA 3754/Del/2017 is also partly allowed

ITA 3754/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz Income Tax, Circle-1, (Son) & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Vs Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz (Son) Income Tax, Circle-1 & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

…har Gunwantbhai, (1981) 129 ITR 573, 580 (Guj.)). iii. Dunichand Dhani Ram Vs. CIT, AIR 1926 Lah 161-2 ITC 183. Also see, George Oummen Vs. C. Ag. LT., (1963) 52 ITR 977 (Cal.)]." iv. CIT Vs A.Raman & Co., (1968) 67 ITR 11, 17(SC). v. Md. Umer Vs.CIT, (1975) 101 ITR 525(Pat.)]. vi. R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) Vs. CIT, (1970) 75 ITR 33 (Bom.); vii. M. Durai Raj Vs. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker); Md. Umer Vs.CIT, (1975) 101 ITR 525(Pat.)]. viii. CST Vs. Vishnuchandra Vipin Chandra, (1982) 50 STC 345 (All)) unless there be a statutory obligation in that regard [Babu Lal Mahadeo Prasad Vs. CIT, (1982) Tax…

Ahluwalia Erectors and Febrications Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT Cir-1 Kota, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…. 21 Tax World 821 (JP) "The AO has nowhere invoked the provisions of section 145(1) and if the provisions are not invoked then the estimate of profit is not possible in the eyes of law. No defect of any kind was pointed out by the AO" 1.3.4 Mohd. Umer v. CIT 101 ITR 525 (Pat) (Page 528) "No finding was recorded by the departmental authorities as to the unacceptability of the method and irregularity of the account kept by the assessee. It is well settled that in the absence of such a finding recorded by the authorities, the book results cannot be ignored or brushed aside." "In the absence of any such finding, the…

Mukta Agriculture Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 with its sub grounds is allowed

ITA 3211/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 133(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 250

…Intermedia Cable Communication Pvt. Ltd. ((2012) 19 Taxmann.com 190 (ITAT, Pune Bench)] b. BabuJewellers Vs. ITO ((2012) 23 Taxmann.com 278 (ITAT, Chandigarh Bench)] C. Keystone India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [16 SOT 64 (ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench)] d. MD. UmerVs. CIT [101 ITR 525 (Pat)) e. MarghabhaiKishabhai Patel & Co. Vs. CIT ((1977) 10S ITR54 (Guj)]” 6. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the documents filed and submissions made by the Assessee, however, could not get 6 M/s. Mukta Agriculture Limited impressed and therefore affirmed the decision of the AO in making the addition of Rs.40,08,601/-, by observing and…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Prag Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 660/LKW/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 40A(2)

…the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(D. R.) also supported the additions, claiming applicability of CUP (Comparable uncontrolled Price). The Learned Learned A. R. for the assessee placed reliance on CIT Vs Poonam Rani 5 Taxmann.com 76 (Del), CIT Vs. Mohd Umer 101 ITR 525 (Patna) for the contention that low profit is not by itself a valid criterion for not accepting profit shown in books of account. He supported this contention with the help of ITAT order also in the case of DCIT Vs Gajanan Traders 12 SOT 36 (Bang.) and orders of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Bony Rubbers Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT (I. T. Act. No.…

Kunan Mal Kalu Ram Jain and Company, Tonk vs. ITO, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 5

…orld 821 (JP) (DPB 6-10) "The AO has nowhere invoked the provisions of section 145(1) and if the provisions are not invoked then the estimate of profit is not possible in the eyes of law. No defect of any kind was pointed out by the AO" 4. Mohd. Umer v. CIT 101 ITR 525 (Pat) (Page 528) (DPB11-14) "No finding was recorded by the departmental authorities as to the unacceptability of the method and irregularity of the account kept by the assessee. It is well settled that in the absence of such a finding recorded by the authorities, the book results cannot be ignored or brushed aside." "In the absence of any such f…

Rajni Tak, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 314/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234A

…the books of account. Kindly refer. I. R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning & Weaving Mills 75 ITR 260 (Bom) (Page 261) II.CIT vs. Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. 192 ITR 565 (Raj.) III.DCIT v. Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. 21 Tax World 821 (JP) IV. Mohd. Umer v. CIT 101 ITR 525 (Pat) (Page 528) V. Ajanta Constructions (P.)Ltd. Vs. ACIT XXII TW 606 (ITAT Jaipur) VI. DCIT Vs. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. XXII TW 155 (JP) VII. Ghewarchand Vs. ITO - XXI TW 571 VIII. Siddheshwari Cotton Mills P. Ltd. V CIT 117 ITR 953 at 957 (Cal) ITR 719 (SC). Also refer : ACIT VS M/S MOUNT MALT BRU LTD 34 TW 246 (Jp). Also kind…

M/S Shri Jeen Mata Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 244A

…ly possible. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: • M/s Bansilal Abirchand Spg. & Wvg. Mills 75 ITR 260 (Bom) • CIT vs. Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. 192 ITR 565 (Raj.) • DCIT vs. Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. 21 Tax World 821 (JP) • Mohd. Umer vs. CIT 101 ITR 525 • Ajanta Constructions (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT XXII TW 606 (ITAT Jaipur) • DCIT vs. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. XXII TW 155 (JP) • Ghewarchand vs. ITO- XXI TW 571 • Siddheshwari Cotton Mills P. Ltd. vs. CIT 117 ITR 953 at 957 (Call) • ACIT vs. M/s Mount Malt Bru Ltd 34 TW 246 (JP) • CIT vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.) •…

M/S.Gangpur Wine vs. Comnr.of Incometax

The appeals are allowed, but in the

ITA/222/2004HC Orissa02 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

…entioned contentions of the Assessee. There it was held that earning low profits by itself, without corresponding facts, cannot be a ground for holding that the books of account are not properly maintained. In Md. Umar v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1975) 101 ITR 525 (Patna)a Division Bench of that High Court accepted the Assessee’s books of account and held that the rejection was based on suspicion and surmises as well as irrelevant material. In St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala (1970) 76 ITR 365 (Ker), a Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that the rejection of accounts was not justified p…

Royal Seeds & Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 956/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.956/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…Ltd. Assessment Year:2011-12 of Ld. CIT(A) to reject the books of accounts is not acceptable and for that we rely on the following judgments: i) St. Teresa’s Oil Mills vs. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Kerala) ii) Md. Umer vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1975] 101 ITR 525 (Pat) Therefore, in the light of the discussions made (supra) and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and the fact that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld. CIT(A) has noticed any specific defects in the books of accounts of the assessee therefore, rejection of books of accounts by the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance wit…