Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal v. CIT

328 ITR 471High Court2010#14073 most cited
7

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

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)

Judgments citing Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal v. CIT

ITO, WARD SAMANA AT, PATIALA vs. M/S QUALITY RICE EXPORTS PVT. LTD., PATRAN

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 818/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.818/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito M/S Quality Rice Exports Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Samana At Patiala. Nial Bye-Pass Road, Patran, Vs. District Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacq-1395-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala [Cit(A)] Dated 27-03-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 25-03-2013. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Restoration Of Addition Of Closing Stock As Made By Ld. Ao In The Impugned Order. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.818/CHANDI/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO M/s Quality Rice Exports Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Samana at Patiala. Nial Bye-pass Road, Patran, Vs. District Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACQ-1395-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 26-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03…

DECCAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2020[10000]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-2018) M/S Deccan Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of K.B.N.Complex Income Tax (Central) D.No.27-16-65 Visakhapatnam Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccd1524H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrim.V.Prasad.Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr 22.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

For Appellant: ShriM.V.Prasad.ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 69

…d that undisclosed stock required to be taxed as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. i) Sanjayson of Dwarakadas Jajoo Vs. CIT (2006) 154 Taxmann 101 (MP) ii) Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal Vs. CIT (1994) 146 ITR 368 (Bom) iii) B.T.Steel Ltd., Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 471 iv) Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 – value of unexplained investment (stock) assessable to Income Tax u/s 69 Accordingly, the Ld.Pr.CIT revised the assessment order, directing the AO to tax the income @60% on excess stock required to be brought to tax @60% and quantifi…

DECCAN TOBACCO COMPANY,GUNTUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Deccan Tobacco Company Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.5-7-6-1/5, Brodipet (Central) Guntur Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aahfd1174H]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 263Section 69

…u/s 69 of the Act. i) Sanjayson of Dwarakadas Jajoo Vs. CIT (2006) 154 Taxmann 101 (MP) 4 I.T.A. No139/Viz/2020, A.Y.2017-18 M/s Deccan Tobacco Company, Guntur ii) RamanlalKacharulalTejmal Vs. CIT (1994) 146 ITR 368 (Bom) iii) B.T.Steel Ltd., Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 471 iv) Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 – value of unexplained investment (stock) assessable to Income Tax u/s 69 2.2. Accordingly, the Ld.Pr.CIT revised the assessment order, directing the AO to tax the income @60% on excess stock of Rs.7,60,53,000/- u/s 115BBE of the Act.…

DCIT, SIRHIND vs. M/S RAJA FAT & FEEDS PVT. LTD., RAJPURA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 840/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri P.K.Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 44A

…nce on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Recon Machine Tool Private Limited versus CIT 286 ITR 637 (Kar). In that case the assessee had failed to substantiate its explanation in this regard. Similarly, in BT steels Ltd versus CIT 328 ITR 471 (P&H), another case law relied upon by the AO, the bank had actually verified the stock held by the assessee and the assessee failed to furnish explanation regarding difference in the stock. In the case of the appellant, if its explanation that the difference in quantity of stock was due to wastage shown at 3.61% in bank statement is considered,…

ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAJ LAXMI RICE MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1073/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 69B

…s cited the assessee’s explanation may be considered and no addition be made on this score. However, the AO did not agree with the explanation given by the assessee and referred to the decision of P&H High court in the case of B. T. Steels Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 471 (P&H) and Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Recon Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 286 ITR 637 to repell the contention of the assessee company and made the addition of Rs.54,92,434/- as undisclosed investment u/s. 69B of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to delete the addition.…

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. ELGI ELECTRIC & INDUSTRIES LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2362/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Pavuna Sundari, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Jagadisan, CA
Section 69

…mitted to the bank as on that day was at Rs. 9,99,36,731/-. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 76,28,385/-. After giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard etc., taking cognizance of Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in B.T. Steels Limited Vs CIT 328 ITR 471 and the Jurisdictional High Court decision in Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Limited Vs CIT 95 ITR 375, the Assessing Officer added the above difference of Rs. 76,28,385/- u/s. 69. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) relying on this ITAT order in ITA No. 303/Mds/2014 dated 30.04.2014 for asse…

SIVAKUMAR & CO., REP. BY S.MOHANRAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, ERODE

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

ITA 706/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.706/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 131Section 41(1)Section 68

…oan, the stock statement given to the bank cannot be ignored since it was certified by the assessee as true and correct and the stocks were duly insured as per the stock statement given to the bank. The Ld.DR also relied on the decision of 286 ITR 637 and 328 ITR 471. 7.3 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. As per the Assessment Order, the stock valuation as on 21.04.2014 was Rs.62,52,774/-. The AY involved is 2011-12, hence, there must be a typographical error in the date of the stock. Against the stock of Rs.62,52,774/-, as per Balance Sheet, the stock statement give…

Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal v. CIT (328 ITR 471) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax