Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT

79 ITD 84Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2001#9887 most cited

What is Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT authority for?

Disallowance under section 40A(3) can only be made if an assessee incurs expenditure but violates the mandate of section 40A(3), provided the genuineness of the expenditure is not in doubt.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT · section 40A(3) · genuineness of expenditure · disallowance · cash payments · business expenditure

Issues it is cited on

section 250(4)genuineness of the transactionsection 25section 13section 144transfersection 143prescribedsection 250personsection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT

Shital Vipulkumar Dholakia, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 259/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40A(3)

…embedded in such purchases could have been brought to tax, in line with settled judicial precedents. 2.13 In support, the AR placed reliance on the decisions in: i. ii. Sharma Associates v. ACIT (1995) 55 ITD 171 (Pune) (TM); Rajmal Lakhichand v. ACIT (2001) 79 ITD 84 (Pune); iii. iv. Western India Bakers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 87 ITD 607 (Mumbai); Free India Assurance Services Ltd. v. DCIT (2011) 132 ITD 60 (Mumbai). Where it was decided that the provisions of section 40A(3) can be applied only in cases where an assessee in fact incurs an expenditure but violates the mandate of section 40A(3). However, the ge…

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…rprises(P) Ltd 35 com384 (Bom-HC) 20. Confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide civil appeal No. 14828/20 13 on 30.08.20 13 21. Himalaya Distributors vs. ITO 239 DTR 267 (Pune-ITAT) 22. P. Malliwaql vs. JCIT 10 SOT 319 (Hyd-ITAT) (TM) 23. RajmalLakhichand vs. ACIT 79 ITD 84 (Pune-ITAT) 24. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT V/s M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co ITA No. 1004 of 2016 dated 11.2.2019 and also on the recent decision of Co- ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of V.R. Enterprises V/s ITO ITA No.4650/Mum/2018 order dated 16.05.20 19 Furthermore, as your Honor is aware, Section 131 giv…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…rprises(P) Ltd 35 com384 (Bom-HC) 20. Confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide civil appeal No. 14828/20 13 on 30.08.20 13 21. Himalaya Distributors vs. ITO 239 DTR 267 (Pune-ITAT) 22. P. Malliwaql vs. JCIT 10 SOT 319 (Hyd-ITAT) (TM) 23. RajmalLakhichand vs. ACIT 79 ITD 84 (Pune-ITAT) 24. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT V/s M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co ITA No. 1004 of 2016 dated 11.2.2019 and also on the recent decision of Co- ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of V.R. Enterprises V/s ITO ITA No.4650/Mum/2018 order dated 16.05.20 19 Furthermore, as your Honor is aware, Section 131 giv…

Puneet Sahdev, Jammu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jammu

ITA 579/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ly on the basis of a presumption that the assessee had made the purchases by way of cash from the grey market in violation of the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) of the Act. Further, we find that the ITAT, Pune in the case of Rajmal Lakhichand vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 79 ITD 84 (Pune), had observed, that the provisions of Sec 40A(3) are to be invoked when the Department has evidence with itself that the assessee had made payments in cash exceeding the prescribed limits. It was observed by the Tribunal that disallowance cannot be made merely on the basis of a presumption that the assessee must have made payments in cash an…

Income Tax Officer, Jammu vs. Sh. Puneet Sehdev, Prop., Jammu

ITA 547/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ly on the basis of a presumption that the assessee had made the purchases by way of cash from the grey market in violation of the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) of the Act. Further, we find that the ITAT, Pune in the case of Rajmal Lakhichand vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 79 ITD 84 (Pune), had observed, that the provisions of Sec 40A(3) are to be invoked when the Department has evidence with itself that the assessee had made payments in cash exceeding the prescribed limits. It was observed by the Tribunal that disallowance cannot be made merely on the basis of a presumption that the assessee must have made payments in cash an…

Sh. Puneet Sehdev Prop, Jammu vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Jammu

ITA 305/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ly on the basis of a presumption that the assessee had made the purchases by way of cash from the grey market in violation of the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) of the Act. Further, we find that the ITAT, Pune in the case of Rajmal Lakhichand vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 79 ITD 84 (Pune), had observed, that the provisions of Sec 40A(3) are to be invoked when the Department has evidence with itself that the assessee had made payments in cash exceeding the prescribed limits. It was observed by the Tribunal that disallowance cannot be made merely on the basis of a presumption that the assessee must have made payments in cash an…

Sh. Puneet Sehdev Prop;, Jammu vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Jammu

ITA 5/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ly on the basis of a presumption that the assessee had made the purchases by way of cash from the grey market in violation of the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) of the Act. Further, we find that the ITAT, Pune in the case of Rajmal Lakhichand vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 79 ITD 84 (Pune), had observed, that the provisions of Sec 40A(3) are to be invoked when the Department has evidence with itself that the assessee had made payments in cash exceeding the prescribed limits. It was observed by the Tribunal that disallowance cannot be made merely on the basis of a presumption that the assessee must have made payments in cash an…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5293/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

…Bench reported in 107 TTJ 395 ' , In the case of R.K.Synthetics vs. ITO reported at 81 TTJ 909; the Hon'ble ITAT, Jcdhpur Bench Hon'ble Chandigarh IT,AT in the case of ITO v. Arora Alloys Ltd. (2012)[12 ITR (trib) 26.3], Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT [2001] 79 ITD 84 (Pune) . Western India Bakers (P,.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 87'ITD 607 (Mum.) Sharma Associates v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 217 ITR (AT) 1/[1995] 55 ITD~ 171 (Pune) (TM) , : Glorious Hospitlaity Pvt. Ltd. Vs Department of Income Tax ITAT Delhi Bench 'C' ITA No.2124/Del./2012 6.3.5. The addition by the A.O. cannot be accepted in view of judicial pronounceme…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Manjula S. Shah, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7220/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

Section 133(6)Section 69C

…invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) and in making the disallowance of Rs. 6,16,346 being 20 per cent of the above purchases of Rs. 3080,730. In support the reliance was also placed on the following decisions:-- (1)Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT [2001] 79 ITD 84 (Pune) .. (2)Western India Bakers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 87 ITD 607 (Mum.) (3)Sharma Associates V. Asstt. CIT [1996] 217 ITR (AT) 1/[1995] 55 ITD 171 (Pune) (TM). 18 Mrs. Manjula S. Shah He, therefore, submits that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Id. CIT(A) be deleted. 17. On the other hand, the Id. D.R. whi…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3604/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

…invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) and in making the disallowance of Rs. 6,16,346 being 20 per cent of the above purchases of Rs. 3080,730. In support the reliance was also placed on the following decisions:-- (1)Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT [2001] 79 ITD 84 (Pune) .. (2)Western India Bakers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 87 ITD 607 (Mum.) (3)Sharma Associates V. Asstt. CIT [1996] 217 ITR (AT) 1/[1995] 55 ITD 171 (Pune) (TM). He, therefore, submits that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Id. CIT(A) be deleted. 17. On the other hand, the Id. D.R. while relying on the order o…

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Rajeev G Kalathil, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5312/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5312/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Rajeev G Kalathil, Tax -25(3), M-605, Regency Park, Vs. 308, C-11, Rna Millennium Township, Bandra-Kurla Complex, M G Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400067 Mumbai-400051 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke
Section 69C

…ii) Diagnostics V/s CIT (334 ITR 111) Calcutta High Court; iv) YFC Project Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT 46 DTR 496/134 TTJ 167 (Del); 5 CO No.249/M/14 v) Free India Assurance Services Ltd V/s DCIT 62 DTR 349 /(2011)12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum); vi) Rajmal Lakhichand V/s ACIT 79 ITD 84 vii) Kishinchand Chellaram V/s CIT 125 ITR713 (Supreme Court) viii) Kanchanwala Gems -122 TTJ 854, Jaipur Bench ITAT; ix) Babulal C Borana V/s ITO (282 ITR 251) (Bombay High Court); x) CIT V/s M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd 2013 TIOL-04-HC-MUM-IT, 17.12.2012 While elaborating the applicability of provisions of section 69C of the Act, the ld.…

Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT (79 ITD 84) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax