Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

316 ITR 120High Court2009#2510 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.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 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 115BBESection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 68Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 66section 158bcrejection of books of accountsection 260section 260asection 145(3)best judgment assessmentinterest u/s 234asection 40a(3)section 145section 44ab

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

The ITO, Burhanpur vs. Shri Pravin Mehta, Burhanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly, allowed

ITA 446/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.446 /Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 145

…d in tax audit report. The learned counsel relying on the decisions in the case of CIT V. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog [2002] 256 ITR 243(Raj) / 120 Taxman 779 /169 CTR 318 (Raj), CIT v. Anil Kumar & Co. 67 taxmann.com 278 (Karn), Malani Ramjivan Jaganath v. ACIT 316 ITR 120 (Raj) and others submitted that once rejection of books of accounts, is not justified, no addition can be sustained. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO has rejected books of accounts on the ground that transportation, hamali, freight and other direct expenses has not bee…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Kayakalp Herbal Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 609/JPR/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2017AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Pratima Kaushik, CIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139(1)Section 153A

…ock record is not maintained, the Books of Accounts can’t be rejected on this ground alone. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i) 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…

Pradeep Kumar Himmatramka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 140/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Ao & No Defect Whatsoever Was Pointed Out In The Same, Thus The Observation Of The Ao & Ld. Cit(A) That The Assessee Has Not Maintained Stock Records Deserves To Be Excluded & Ignored

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-. DR
Section 145(3)Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 140/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Shri Pradeep Kumar Himatramka The ITO Vs. P.O. Chirawa -333 026 Ward- 2, Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACPH 7933 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Manish Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 13/04/2017 ?kks"k.kk…

Laxmi Narayan Himmatramka, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 973/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Apr 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-. DR
Section 145(3)

…2009-10 3,51,65,882.00 9,64,532.00 2.74 2008-09 3,05,87,851.00 21,855.00 0.71 5 Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Himmatramka vs. ITO, Ward- 2 , Jhunjhunu . The ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws:- 1. Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs.Asst. CIT (Raj.), 316 ITR 120 2. Haridas Parikh V ITO [2009] 29 SOT 13 (JODH.)(URO) 3. Ashok Kumar & Co. v. ITO [2004] 2 SOT 518 (Asr.) (SMC) 4. CM. Francis & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [77 ITR 449] (Kerala) 5. Asstt. CIT v. L.M.P. Tractors (P.) Ltd. [2005] 148 Taxman 52 (Mag.) (Ahmedabad ) 6. ACIT vs. Kanhaiyalal Choudhary [ITAT Jaipur Bench]: The accepted past history is the best…

ACIT, Kota vs. Himmatram Juharmal Sarraf, Kota

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

ITA 1058/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(CA)For Respondent: Shri Prakash Meena(JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…2.1 On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A) and also placed reliance on the following case laws: (1) PCIT vs. Bhawani Silicate Industries (2016) 236 Taxman 596 (Raj.) (HC) (2) Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. ACIT 316 ITR 120/207 CTR 19 (Raj. (3) CIT V. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) (4) Pr. CIT Vs. Hues India Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2275 (RaJ.) dt. 30-07-2015 (5) ITO vs. Swastik Udyog 29 CCH 829 (Jaipur) (Trib.) 3 M/s Himmatram Juharmal Sarraf. (6) Prem Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 56 ITD 382 (JP). (7) CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223/41 DTR 194 (Del.)…

DCIT, Alwar vs. British Health Products (I) Ltd., Bhiwadi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 60/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

…, therefore, there is no material on record to justify the rejection of methods of accounting or books of account in the matter or to apply higher GP/NP rate in the matter. 6. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Malani Jaagannath Vs. ACIT [( 2009) 316 ITR 120 ( Raj.) held as under:- “Held that account books were maintained as they were ordinarily maintained year after year which were found to yield a fair result. Mere deviation in the gross profit rate cannot be a ground for rejecting the books of account and entering the realm of estimate and guess work. The lower gross profit rate shown in the books…