R 46 (Del); Addl. CIT vs Dharamdas Agarwal (1983) 144 ITR 143 (MP); Addl. CIT v. Mohan Engineering Co.

122 ITR 68High Court1980#13295 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing R 46 (Del); Addl. CIT vs Dharamdas Agarwal (1983) 144 ITR 143 (MP); Addl. CIT v. Mohan Engineering Co.

ACIT Khandwa, Khandwa vs. M.S, Sitaram Agrawal, Kasrawad

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 925/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Sitaram Agrawal, Income Tax, Vs. Prop. M/S Smo Khandwa Industries, Indore Road, Kasrawad, Dist. Khargone (M.P) (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aazpa9277E Appellant By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mourya, Ars Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2020 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…oneys, the assessee will be entitled to set off and determination of the peak credit after arranging all the credits in the chronological order. 16. Such proposition was also considered by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of CIT v. Neemar Ram Badlu Ram [1980[ 122 ITR 68 (All.) in which the relevant paragraphs are reproduced- as under:- "The Tribunal also did not agree with the departmental authorities that merely because the assets in the balance sheet changed from time to time, the difference would not be available for explaining a similar difference in subsequent years” 3.12.3] That Hon'ble Gujarat High Court i…

Shri Manoj Chainsukh Asawa, Nagpur vs. The ITO-Ward-4(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 179/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Baral, Senior DR

Section 145(3)Section 68

…which are unproved. Our view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah – (1979) 120 ITR 294 (AP) and of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neema Ram Badlu Ram – (1980) 122 ITR 68 (All). Accordingly, we delete the addition of bank deposits treated by the Assessing Officer as cash credits being trade creditors and sustained the addition of gross profit applied by the Assessing Officer after rejecting the gross profit addition but only at the rate of 5%. The Assessing Officer will recompute the income accordingly. 6. The nex…

Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5985/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 68

…ubmitted had been supported by various decisions namely Addl. CIT vs Chetan Das (1975) 99 ITR 46 (Del); Addl. CIT vs Dharamdas Agarwal (1983) 144 ITR 143 (MP); Addl. CIT vs Mohan Engineering Co. )1985_ 151 ITR 571 (Pat.); CIT vs Neemar Ram Badlu Ram (1980) 122 ITR 68 (All.); Surendra M.Khandar vs Asstt. CIT (2001) 76 ITD 121 (Mum.); Essem Intra Port Services P.Ltd. vs Asstt. CIT (2000) 72 ITD 228 (Hyd.); and Kronor Investments Limited vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai). 2.2. The necessary facts for deciding the issue, it was submitted had been provided to the CIT(A) and are available at paper book pages 41 to 56 filed…

Sh. Devender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 3239/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. AshishFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…in favour of the assessee: • G. Venkatareddy & Co. vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 73 TTJ (Hyd.) 401 • S.R. Enterprise vs. ITO (2002) 77 TT J (Ahd.) 69 • Addl. CIT vs. Chetan Dass (1975) 99 ITR 46 (Del) ~ • CIT vs. Neemar Ram Bandhu Ram(1979) 11 CTR (All) 253: (1980) 122 ITR 68 (All) 3.11 Therefore, in view of the above judgments, the addition, if any, cannot in any way exceed the peak credit appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee. 5 4. Ground No.3 and 4: 4.1 These grounds deal with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the adhoc additions made by the AO. 4.2 The AO has made addition of Rs.50,OOO/- o…

Provash Sardar, C/O-S.K. Khetan, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - Xiii, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1378/KOL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Chhaparia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Sinha, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 234A

…th Prasad Gupta, IT(SS)A No. 185 & 190/Kol/2003; (vi) G. Venkatareddy & Co. Vs. DCIT (2002) 124 taxman 261; (vii) S. R. enterprise Vs. ITO (2002) 77 TTJ (Ahd.) 69; (viii) Addl. CIT Vs. Chetan Dass (1975) 99 ITR 46 and (ix) CIT Vs. Neemar Ram Bandhu Ram (1980) 122 ITR 68. As evident from the aforesaid judgments, the principal of ‘peak credit’ is applicable on peak balance owned by the assessee and the entire deposits cannot be subject matter of additions. 8. The assessee stated before the AO that the initial deposit made in cash for opening the bank account and the bank balance on the date of search totaling to R…

Provash Sardar, C/O-S.K. Khetan, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - Xiii, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1377/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Chhaparia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Sinha, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 234A

ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunil Kumar Mehta, Mumbai

In the result ground No.4 is PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 5319/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A Ojha

Section 143(3)

…at High Court decided 'that- , Tribunal having sustained the addition in respect of un .explained investment in money-lending business only to the extent of peak credit and thus held that no question of law arises. In the case of CIT vs, Neemar Ram Badlu Ram [122 ITR 68] Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decided that- TribunaI, was justified in holding that the additions in 'respect of extra profit in each' of the years under appeal would be nil in the years in which the addition on the basis of the difference in the-peak unaccounted money used from year to year exceeds the extra profit. and that where the extra profi…