Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 145(3), Section 115BBE, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C.

Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Q: How many judgments cite Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax?

46 judgments on BharatTax cite Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (316 ITR 120), spanning 2017 to 2025.

316 ITR 120High Court2009#2513 most cited

What is Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax authority for?

A mere lower gross profit (G.P.) rate or deviation in G.P. is not sufficient to justify a trading addition or the rejection of books of account if the books are maintained properly, entries are vouched, and stock positions are not disputed. The estimation of profit must rely on cogent material beyond mere suspicion.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. ACIT · 316 ITR 120 · Section 145(3) · rejection of books of account · lower GP rate · trading addition unjustified · estimation of profit · best judgment assessment · cogent material · vouched entries · stock position not disputed · Section 145

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 115BBE Section 234A Section 234B Section 234C Section 68 Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 66 section 158bc rejection of books of account section 260 section 260a section 145(3)best judgment assessment interest u/s 234a section 40a(3)section 145 section 44ab

Judgments citing Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…5 ITR 185 (P&H) CIT vs. OM Overseas viii) 320 ITR 116 (All) CIT vs. Mascot India Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd. ix) 64 DTR 409 (Jai) Asstt. CIT vs. Shankar Exports x) ITA No. 165/2010 dated 04.05.2017 (All) CIT vs. M/s Pashupati Nath Agro Food Products (P) Ltd xi) 316 ITR 120 (Raj) Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. ACIT xii) ITA No. 336/Ind/2012 dated 31.10.2012 ACIT vs. Dewas Soya Ltd. 15 It is also submitted that where the books of accounts have been audited by chartered accountants under the provisions of the Companies Act and also under Income Tax Act and the Assessing Officer has no material on record to show that th…

KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194C

…of Profit rate In this regard at the outset it is submitted thatsolely for the lower G.P. any deviation in the same could not be justified as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of “MalaniRamjivanJaggannath Vs. ACIT reported in 316 ITR 120”wherein it was held that merely on the basis of a lower G.P. rate or mere deviation in G.P., trading addition was not justified. It is an established principle of law that when the books of accounts are rejected and the profit has to be estimated, it should be based on some cogent material and it must be something more than mere suspicion and the…

SH. JAMBU KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 301/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

…ion more particularly the books of account have been accepted and the assessee has maintained proper and complete stock register and purchase registered. In this regard, the Bench rely upon the following decisions.  Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. ACIT (2009) 316 ITR 120 / 207 CTR 19 (Raj.) (HC) In each trading account, only four entries were there of opening stock and purchases on debit side, sales and closing stock on credit side. The quantum and value of purchases and sales had not been in dispute in as much as they were held to be fully vouched. Value of opening stock also cannot be disputed as it came from c…

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…1 MS. PRIYANKA SURANA VS ITO, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 102/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Priyanka Surana cuke The ITO Vs. 201, Sterling Apartment, B-6-B Ward 5 (1) Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAZPS 1109 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh v…

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…of Rs. 13,99,670.00 as on 19/01/2018, these irregularities are not an indication of manipulation even they does not give any sense of having unexplained money as alleged by the Ld. AO. The Honble Raj.High Court in the case of MalaniRamjivanJagannath vs. ACIT 316 ITR 120(Raj.)it has been held thatIn each trading account, only four entries were there of opening stock, purchase on debit side, sales and closing stock on credit side. The quantum and value of purchases and sales had not been in dispute inasmuch as they were held to be fully vouched. Value of opening stock also cannot be disputed as it came from closin…

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…thout considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense, therefore addition is illegal and such addition should be deleted in toto, The Honble Raj. High Court in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath vs. ACIT 316 ITR 120(Raj.) it has been held that In each trading account, only four entries were there of opening stock, purchase on debit side, sales and closing stock on credit side. The quantum and value of purchases and sales had not been in dispute inasmuch as they were held to be fully vouched. Value of opening stock also cannot be disputed as it came from clos…

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

…the year. Therefore in our opinion the mere fact of non maintenance of stock register cannot be the basis for rejection of books of accounts. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of MalaniRamjivan Jagannath Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 120 has held as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. "10. In the face of these undisputed facts and circumstances, the Tribunal in our opinion could not have interfered with the order of CIT(A). In doing so, it had ignored all admitted facts noticed by us above, in the face of which there was no occasion for the AO to have resorted to estimate meth…

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 900/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

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

…s. 209 crore, which comes to only 0.18% for which the whole books of account cannot be rejected. He relied upon the following decisions: - a) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 120 has held as under:- “10. In the face of these undisputed facts and circumstances, the Tribunal in our opinion could not have interfered with the order of CIT(A). In doing so, it had ignored all admitted facts noticed by us above, in the face of which there was no occasion for the AO to have resorted to estimate method. The GP is primarily result…

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 1/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…ointed out in the books of accounts were of general or technical nature, objection of the dealer were not considered, register produced were not verified and no suppression of sales or purchases was established. • In Malini Ramjiwan Jagannath V/s ACIT, (2009) 316 ITR 120 (RAJ), it was held that mere deviation in Gross Profit Rate cannot be a ground for rejecting the books of accounts and entering the realm of estimate and guess work. It is further held the rate of GP in a particular year depends on many factors e.g. the general market conditions based on demand and supply position, the rise or fall in market rate…

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 279/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 116/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

…was processed and the addition made by the AO was deleted. 28.16. Various decisions have held that deviation in gross profit cannot be a ground to reject books of accounts. The assessee relies on the following decisions:- • MalaniRamjivan Jagannath (2009) 316 ITR 120 (Raj HC) — para 9 to 11 • Pawan Enterprises v. ACIT (ITA No. 76/JP/2018)(Jaipur trib) — para 7 • PCIT v. IBILT Technologies Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com 255 (Del HC) — para 9 • ACIT v. Mewar Polytex (51 TTJ 698)(Jaipur trib.) — para 13, 16 & 21 • Madan Lal v. ITO (99 TTJ 538)(jodhpur trib.) — para 9 • Century Tiles Ltd. V. JCIT (152 ITD 327)(Ahm. t…

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ve increased the gross profit ratio merely because it was low as compared to the gross profit ratio of the preceding year. g) 324 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports h) ITA No. 796/2011 (Del) dated 3.05.2012 CIT vs. Winner Constructions (P) Ltd. i) 316 ITR 120 (Raj) Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. ACIT” 5. On the contrary learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessment is validly reopened. The assessee failed to explain the reasons for not filing the return of income and also did not attend the proceedings before the Assessing Office…

M/S R.G. COLONIZERS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 136/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 136/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 M/S R.G. Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Cuke D.C.I.T., 4, Tirupati Trade Centre, S.C. Vs. Circle-3, Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacr 8269 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 06/08/2021 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Rejection Of Books Of Account By Applying The Provisions Of Sec. 145(3). 2. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Action Of Ao In Applying N.P. Rate Of 8% On Total Receipts Of Rs. 18,63,73,549/-, Thereby Computing The Business Income At Rs. 78,42,549/- (18,63,73,549*8%-70,67,877 Depreciation) As Against Net Loss Of Rs. 68,43,810/- Computed By The Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 145(3)Section 2Section 44A

…ccounted for as WIP.Hence, invocation of section 145(3) is unjustified and the consequent addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be deleted. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- (i) Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. ACIT (2009) 316 ITR 120 / 207 CTR 19 (Raj.) (HC) (ii) CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223/ 41 DTR 194 (Del.) (HC) (iii) Ashok Refractories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 279 ITR 457 (Cal.) (HC) (iv) PCIT Vs. Bhawani Silicate Industries (2016) 236 Taxman 596 (Raj.) (HC) 2. On merit it is submitted that during the year the assessee mainly executed the work which was awarde…

JAIPUR GEMS CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 628/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: None (written submission)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 145(3)Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 628/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 cuke Jaipur Gem Crafts Jaipur ITO, Vs. Behind Golimar Garden, Ward 5(1), Amer Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AABFJ4618E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None (written submission) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Chou…

MAHENDRA KUMAR MUTHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalmahendra Kumar Mutha, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S R.B. Mutha & Co. Income Tax, B-11/A, Mandore Mandi, Circle-3, Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Abmpm 02466 M Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri A.S. Yadav, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

Section 44A

…assessee was nowhere controverter by the authorities below. Lower gross profit as compared to earlier year cannot be the ground to reject the books of accounts. We take support from the decision in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs Asstt. CIT reported 316 ITR 120 wherein it was held by Rajasthan High Court as under: “Tribunal committed basic error in not appreciating the reasoning given by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was trite to say that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, account books were maintained as they were ordinarily maintained year after years and which were found to yield a…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1309/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2020AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma , CA &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ly audited, free from any qualification by the auditors, should normally be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagan Nath (2009) 316 ITR 120 (2007) 163 Taxman 731 has held that account books were maintained as they were ordinarily maintained year after year which were found to yield a fair result and mere deviation in gross profit rate cannot be a ground for rejecting the books of accounts and entering the realm of estimate and guess work. The Ld. A.O. has accepted the declared purcha…

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3