How many judgments cite R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT?

63 judgments on BharatTax cite R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT (75 ITR 33), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 145(3), Section 69A, Section 142(1).

R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT

75 ITR 33High Court1970#1827 most cited

What is R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT authority for?

The mere absence of customer addresses, particularly for cash sales, in the books of account is not a sufficient ground to reject the books or to cast suspicion on the genuineness of the transactions.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT · 75 ITR 33 · rejection of books of account · section 145(3) · absence of customer addresses · cash sales genuineness · genuineness of transactions · section 68 addition · suspicion of transactions · books of account validity

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 115be section 69d rejection of books of account addition under section 68 section 145(3)addition u/s 68 section 145 section 158bc section 44ab section 115bb section 115b section 69b

Judgments citing R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT

MOHD GULZAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 63(5), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4097/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

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

…at profit being low cannot be ground for rejection of books of accounts considering books of accounts being properly audited and relevant vouchers were available to the Assessing Officer. O. In the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33 (Born HC), it had been held that mere absence of addresses from the account books was not a sufficient ground for rejecting accounts. Thus, placing reliance on the said decision, it can be inferred that mere absence of addresses of the nomadic shepherds cannot state a basis for the Learned AO for rejecting the books of accounts.” 13 7. On the othe…

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

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

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

…ales. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal correctly found in\nfavour of the assessee and deleted the addition made by CIT(A) of Rs.\n73.13 crores, under section 68 of the Act.\"\n\nBombay High Court – R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) v.\nCIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay HC)\nthere was no necessity whatsoever for the assessee to have\nmaintained the addresses of cash customers, the failure to\nmaintain the same or to supply them as and when called for\ncannot be regarded as a circumstance giving rise to a suspicion\nwith regard to the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal,\ntherefore, was not right,…

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…he reason that the assessee could not give the identity of all the purchasers, In this regard, we rely on the following judgement:  Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fetehchand (Sugar Dept.) vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay, (1970) 75 ITR 33, held sas under: “….. . In these circumstances, the reason given by the Income-tax Officer for rejecting the book results shown by the assessee's accounts or for not accepting the cash transactions as genuine cannot be accepted as good and sufficient unless there was an obligation on the part of the assessee to keep a record of the addresses of the…

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…same cannot be the ground of rejection of books of accounts. Reliance is placed on following decisions: - 26 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. i) Hon’bleHigh Court of Bombay in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.)v/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay) held that (Copy at Case laws PB Page No 75-78) ii) Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur Vs M/s Uttam Chand Deshraj (ITAT Jaipur Bench ITA No 419/JP/2010 Order dated 25/03/2011) (Copy at Case laws PB Page No 117-120) iii) ITAT Delhi in Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya, Proprietor, M/s Poonam Enterprises v. ITO ITA No. 1…

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…urn. Therefore, cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. (b) R.B.JessaramFetehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT (1969) 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) In the facts of above case the assessee had shown cash sales of sugar. The Assessing Officer required address of the buyers. The Hon’ble High Court in regard to the matter held as under:- “In the case of a cash transaction where delivery of goods is taken against cash payment, it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name a…

ACIT-3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. HARSHIT GARG, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 451/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Acit, Lucknow Vs. Harshit Garg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.25/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Harshit Garg, Vs. Acit, Lucknow Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 17.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 68

…Ltd. vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (All). 8. Shree Sanand Textiles Industries Ltd. vs. DCTT ITA No.1166/AHD/2014. 9. CIT vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujarat High Court) Tax Appeal No.2471 of 2009. 10. R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay HC). 11. Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya vs. Income Tax Officer ITA No.1220/Del/2011 (ITAT Delhi). 12. CIT vs. Jaora Flour and Foods (P) Ltd., [2012] 344 ITR 294. 13. M/s Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No.6520/Del/2018 (ITAT Delhi) 14. CIT vs. Smt. Harshil Chordia vs. ITO (Rajasthan High Court) 2008 298 ITR 349 Raj.” 6. The assessee also que…

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

ITA 431/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.S. Usmani, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…in support of his arguments and submitted that these case laws may be duly considered while adjudicating the issue. The list of case laws relied upon by the Ld. A.R. is as under: Sl. Details of case law No. 1 R.B. Jessaram Fetehchand (Sugar) vs. CIT - [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay), order dated 19.01.1967. 2 ACIT vs Hirapanna Jewellers in ITA No 253/Viz/2020, order dated 12.05.2021, ITAT Vishakhapatnam. 3 Anantpur Kalpana vs. ITO in ITA No. 541/Bang/2021, Order dated 13.12.2021, ITAT Bangalore. 4 ACIT vs. Motisons Jewellers in ITA No. 161/Jp/2022, order dated 29.09.2022, ITAT, Jaipur. 5 ACIT vs. Mahendra Kumar Aga…

M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

ITA 351/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.S. Usmani, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

SANDIP DOHARE,GONDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GONDIA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 533/NAG/2024[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

…cash deposit prior to said amendment. There are series of decisions which have held that enhanced rate of tax under Section 115BBE is not applicable for A.Y. 2017-18. To support this assessee relies on the following case laws: R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand vs CIT 75 ITR 33 (Bom) R.S. Diamond Ltd. Vs ACIT 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum) CIT Vs Vishal Exports Over Without prejudice to above the Ld. AO had also not rejected books of accounts even though he had considered the excess credit in the bank account which is part of the books of accounts as such the Ld. AO was incorrect in making addition without rejecting the books…

PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

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

ITA 368/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 199CSection 250Section 68

…bullion were\nmade.\"\n12. It is true that there are some sale bills where no name of buyer is mentioned. In this regard,\nkind attention is invited to decision of Honourable Bombay High Court in case of R.B.\nJessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 wherein, it was observed\nthat in the case of a cash transaction where delivery of goods is taken against cash\npayment, it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the\npurchaser. The honourable Court further held that there was no necessity whatsoever for\nthe assessee to have maintained the addresses of cash cus…

INDERJEET SINGH PROP. MS GURMUKH TRAVELS 490-A, MODEL TOWN EXTENSION, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA , PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 799/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 799/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inderjeet Singh Prop. Vs. The Ito, Ms. Gurmukh Travels, बनाम Ward 6(1), 490A, Model Town Extension, Aaykar Bhawan, Ludhiana Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ayvps2540L अपीलाथ"/ ""यथ"/ Appellant Repsondent

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)

…ich have been filed before the AO, as mentioned in the copy of the sale register and further there is no bar in making the cash sale as per the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of RB Jessaram Fateh Chand vs. CIT reported at [1970] 75 ITR 33 wherein it has been held as under: "There is no necessity for assessee to maintain the addresses of customers and failure to maintain the same or to supply them as and when called for cannot give rise to suspicion with regard to genuineness of transactions" 8. Same view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of reported at [1972] 83 I…

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)

…ITA nos. 3555 & 3754/Del/2017 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad V ACIT Muzaffarnagar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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 AND Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Vs Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Commissioner of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz (son) In…

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

ITA 928/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Th. V.C.)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…decision has also been upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Agson Global (P.) Ltd [2022] 134 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi). 2.15. Attention is also invited towards the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33, wherein the Hon’ble High Court at Para 2 of the order held as under: “In these circumstances, the reason given by the Income-tax Officer for rejecting the book results shown by the assessee’s accounts or for not accepting the cash transactions as genuine cannot be accepted as good and sufficient unless there was an obligation on the part of the as…

ALOK MAHESHCHANDRA AGRAWAL,JALGAON vs. DCIT - 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1736/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1736/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Alok Maheshchandra V The Dcit-1, Agarwal, S Jalgaon. Alok Agro Product 137, Bhawani Peth, Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Afypa7187D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dinar Daptary – Ca & Shri Sidhesh Mayekar – Ar Revenue By Dr. Shashank Ojha – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2016- 17 Dated 18.06.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. In This Case, Assessment Order Has Been Passed U/Sec.143(3) R.W.S 263 Of The Act, On 30.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1 On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Without Appreciating The Provisions Of Law, Statutory Schemes, Facts, Submissions, Documents & Case Laws. The Appellant Prays That The Entire Assessment Be Treated As Bad In Law.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 2nSection 68

…f customers on the bills is concerned, it is observed that AO has accepted the entire sale, when admittedly most of the bills did not contain address of the customers. 8 6.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fetehchand Vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33(BOM) has observed as under on the issue of cash sale without address of the customers: Quote, “All that is not done is that the addresses are not entered and on enquiry the assessee was unable to supply the addresses. Since, having regard to the nature of the transaction and the manner in which they had been effected, there was no necessity whatsoe…

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 12/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nSh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: \nSh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…n upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Agson\nGlobal (P.) Ltd [2022] 134 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi). [CLC Page 280-309]\n2.26. Attention is also invited towards the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33,\nwherein the Hon'ble High Court at Para 2 of the order held as under:\n“In these circumstances, the reason given by the Income-tax Officer for\nrejecting the book results shown by the assessee's accounts or for not\naccepting the cash transactions as genuine cannot be accepted as good and\nsufficient unless there was an obligation on the part of t…

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…n-genuine for wants of the details which are not required to obtain and keep as per the law. Reliance is placed on following decisions:- i) Hon’bleHigh Court of Bombay in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.)v/s Commissioner of Income Tax [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay) held that :- Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts - On assessee's inability to supply addresses of purchasers who purchased goods on cash, ITO rejected assessee's books of account showing result in respect of cash sale transac…

NITIN KUMAR BOHRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.T. Seshadri, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…h is general and normal practice in the retail industry. Therefore it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the purchaser. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of R.B. Jessaram Fatehch and (Sugar Deptt) VS. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33 (Bom). He further submitted that each customer makes cash purchases and lifts the goods. There is no duty cast upon the seller to insist for address of the purchaser. Therefore treating the cash sales as bogus sales is not justified. In support of he relied on the judgment in the case of Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya, Prop. M/s Poonam Enterprises vs.…

FLORENCE AGRO FARMS,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1)(6), MUMBAI

ITA 2093/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 10(1)Section 68

…ural products are not genuine as assessee has not submitted the address of the purchaser to whom the agriculture product has been sold and not considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R. B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept) vs. CIT (75 ITR 33) wherein it has been held that there was no necessity whatsoever for assessee to maintain addresses of cash customers 12. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in not considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT/1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC), Lalchan…

FLORENCE AGRO FARMS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 23(1)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2092/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. J B Bairagra/Ms. Rupa Nanda

Section 10(1)Section 68

…and not considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High been sold and not considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R. B. Court in the case of R. B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept) vs. CIT Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept) vs. CIT (75 ITR 33) wherein it has been held that there was no necessity ITR 33) wherein it has been held that there was no necessity ITR 33) wherein it has been held that there was no necessity whatsoever for asses whatsoever for assessee to maintain addresses of cash customers see to maintain addresses of cash customers 12. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in not c…

MANGAT RAM,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD-1, PANIPAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2564/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mangat Ram, Vs Ito, Vikas Bhatta Co., Bko Kiwana, Ward -1, Panipat, Haryana-132103. Panipat. Pan-Agipr2718L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Navjot Ahuja, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S.Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2024

Section 147Section 69A

…15.01.2024 wherein, it was held "That the cash sales, cannot be doubted only on account of the fact, that the name and address of the purchaser had not been mentioned." (Ref. Page 124-128 of J-PB) R.B. Jassaram FatehChand (Sugar Deptt.) v. CIT 2. reported at 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) "Books of account cannot be rejected merely because the addresses of purchasers in cash sales not maintained and supplied on demand by ITO." (Ref Page 129-132 of J-PB) Naresh Dayanand Chandnani, New Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 3. 54(1), New Delhi (ITA No. 5339/Del/2017) ITAT Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi A.Y.2012-13 Order dtd 25 May, 2018. (Ref. Pag…

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4