How many judgments cite Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO?

187 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO (298 ITR 349), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO come up under?

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

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

298 ITR 349High Court2008#502 most cited

What is Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO authority for?

Cash receipts from customers against genuine delivery of goods or services cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The case also provides guidance on non-disallowance under Section 40A(3) for business payments made in specific contexts like agricultural markets.

187

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,854 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO · 298 ITR 349 · Section 68 · Section 40A(3) · cash credits · unexplained cash receipts · delivery of goods · genuine business receipts · business payments in cash · APMC payments · business income · Rajasthan High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 69A Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

business expediency permanent account number section 40a(3)rejection of books of account addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 section 145(3)section 145 section 40a profits and gains of business or profession section 44ab section 115bb

Judgments citing Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kolkata vs. Swati Bajaj

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/6/2022HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…63 178 ITR 598 (All) 64 (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 65 (1998) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 62 of 150 Reliance was also placed on the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Smt. Harshila Chordia Versus Income-Tax Officer 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan). Further the learned senior counsel explained as to how the transaction was done by the assessee to establish bona fides. Further it is submitted that the department does not allege that the sale affected by the assessee to be bogus, but they used an expression “pre-arranged” sale, for which no material was referred to by the Com…

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/3/2021HC Calcutta07 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

M/S. Shree Buildcon & Associates, Nashik vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 445/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. Shree Buildcon & Associates, Vs. JCIT, Range-2, 11, Eshwar Sankul, Gaikwad Mala, Nashik Nashik Road, Nashik – 422 101 PAN : AAXFS1761P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Smt. Suprabha Joshi Revenue by Shri Rajesh Gawli Date of hearing 10-05-2022 Date of pronouncement 10-05-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 15-01-2015 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Nashik in relation to the…

M/S. P. Gautam & Co., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, we are of the view that the Ld

ITA 538/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shibaji Simlai, Sr. D.R

Section 40A(3)

…I.T.A No. 538/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 8 M/s. P. Gautam & Co. vs. Dy. CIT doubt about genuineness of payment, no disallowance could be made under section 40A(3). Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Raj) had observed that the exceptions contained in Rule 6DD are not exhaustive and that the said rule must be interpreted liberally. In view, of the ratio laid down in the above judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that in the facts of the instant case, no disallowance u/s 40A(3) is called for. The assessee has identified the parti…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ITAT Ahm) • Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya Prop. M/s Poonam Enterprises Vs ITO, in ITA No. 1220/Del/2011 (ITAT Del) • CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) • CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1969) 72 ITR 807 (SC) • Smt. HarshilaChordiavs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) • M/s Heera Steel Limited vs. ITO (2005) 4 ITJ 437 (Nag) • CIT vs. Ghai Lime Stone Co. (1983) 144 ITR 140(MP) • R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT reported at [1970] 75 ITR 33 (BOM.) • M. Durai Raj v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Kerala) • M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Limited vs ITO in ITA No. 4873/Del/1998 order dated 05.10.2018…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Vikrant Happy Homes Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2856/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani

Section 40A(3)

…note that the certain High Courts including the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Anupam Tele Services Vs. ITO reported in (2014) 366 ITR 122 (Guj.) and the Hon‟ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Harshila Chordia Vs. ITO reported in (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj.) have deleted the disallowance in the cases of genuine business transactions and certain other Hon‟ble High Courts including the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Madhav Govind Dulshete Vs. ITO reported in (2018) 259 Taxman 949 (Bom.), the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the case of Vaduganathan Talkies and others Vs. ITO reported…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udiaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court that receipt of the consideration in the exchange of the movable/ immovable property or anything, is a case of self-explanatory credit, hence u/s 68 should not be applied. Kindly refer Smt. Harshila Chordiya vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) wherein it was held the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers against which delivery of vehicles was made – such cash deposits are self – explanatory and would not attract S. 68 – Therefore, no addition could be made. 20 ITA 09/JP/2021_ Annu Agrotech P Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT The Ld. CIT has not doub…

ITO, War-4(1), Jaipur vs. Shri Amit Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…r appeared to be based on mere suspicion and, thus, addition required to be deleted - Held, yes [Pares 9 & 10] [In favour of assessee] 38 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia vs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 held that "Addition u/s 68 could not be made in respect of the amount which was found to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to them.” Similarly, the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench in the case of Mis Heera Steel Limited vs ITO (2005) 4 IT J 437 held that "Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate the ca…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(3), Hyderabad vs. Value Pharma Retail(Hyd) Private Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2056/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R.Dipak, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…sited the amount in a bank account. In the facts of the present case, rigors of section 40A(3) of the Act must be lifted. We notice that the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. Income-Tax Officer, reported in [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Raj) had observed that the exceptions contained in Rule 6DD are not exhaustive and that the said rule must be interpreted liberally. Before closing, we may clarify that the above observations would apply only to the cash payments made by the assessee to the Tata Teleservices Limited. No such peculiar facts arise in case of payments made to the o…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Padmasri Townships Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1658/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…i.e. identity, genuineness and sources of funds to the above transactions have been satisfied, applying the rule 6DD(j) in strict manner would not serve the desired purpose of the legislature. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Harshita Chordia (298 ITR 349) has held that exceptions contained in rule 6DD(j) are not exhaustive and these rules should be construed liberally and should be taken as guide to appreciate the circumstances that compel an assessee to make :- 5 -: certain payments in cash, and should not amount to violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 12.3 It is also seen from…

Nikhil Jain (L/H of Beena Jain), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7880/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nikhil Jain Vs Acit, (L/H Of Beena Jain), Circle-31(1), H-41, Green Park Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aagpj1088H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate & Shri Puneet Rai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 40A(3)

…isallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is uncalled for and should be deleted. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the following decisions:- i) Kalyan Constructions vs. ITO, ITA No.2113/Hyd/2017; ii) Harshila Chordia vs. ITO, (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj); iii) ITO vs. Pranay Towers (2016) 52 ITR (Trib) 258 (ITAT Delhi); iv) KGL Network (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2018) 66 ITR (Trib) 371 (ITAT Delhi); and v) S.G. Enterprises vs. ACIT, ITA No.275/Del/2012 11. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has given valid reasons while sustain…

Suresh Chunnilal Sharma, Parbhani vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - Parbhani, Parbhani

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1883/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1883/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 40A(3)

…ective points of view. Por una parte, certain High Courts including the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Anupam Tele Services Vs. ITO (2014) 366 ITR 122 (Guj.) and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in 11 Suresh Chunnilal Sharma Harshila Chordia Vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj.) have deleted the disallowance in the cases of genuine business transactions, por otra parte, certain other High Courts including the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Madhav Govind Dulshete Vs. ITO (2018) 259 Taxman 949 (Bom.), the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Vaduganathan Talkies and others Vs. ITO (2020) 428 ITR 224 (Mad.), the Hon’ble Ka…

M/S. Arihant Traders, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT-28(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-

ITA 442/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Arihant Traders, The Asstt. Commissioner Of F-149, Apmc Onion Potato Income Tax – 28 (1), Market, Turbhe, Vashi, Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Vs. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Pan: Aaxfa3575F Station Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/11/2020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)

Section 143Section 40A(3)

…Pune Bench of the Tribunal has decided the said issue in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO 191 ITR 667 (SC), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Harshila Chordiya vs. ITO 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan) and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gurudas Garg vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 63 taxman.com 289 (Punjab & Haryana). The Ld. counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is similar to the issue raised in the cases referred above, the same is covered in favour of the assessee. Since, t…

M/S Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

…on 40A(3), certain exceptions were allowed to be provided by way of delegated legislations. Accordingly, Rule 6DD was notified in the year 1969 setting out the exceptions. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Harshila Chordia vs. ITO 298 ITR 349 has held that list of exceptions provided under rule 6DD is not exhaustive. Meaning thereby that more could be read into it, if the same does not violate the reason for which section 40A(3) was introduced. Thus, the contention of AO and ld. CIT(A) that the appellant was unable to specify under which clause of Rule 6DD its case fall is not correct…

Shri. K. Muniraju, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

ITA 1376/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Reddy, Standing Counsel to Dept. (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…rewith]. The Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal by holding as above, relied on the following judgments: 1. Sri Laxmi Satranarayana Oil Mills vs. CIT 367 ITR 200 (T & AP) 2. Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. in ITA No.5170/Del/2014 dated 1110912017 3. Harshila Chordia vs. ITO 298 ITR 349 (Raj) And also, the assessee relied on the judgment öf.High Court of Delhi in case of R.C. Goyal Vs. CIT in ITA N6.636 of 2012. The above said judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Assessee's case. In view of the above submission Your Honour is requested to drop the proceedings initiated u/s 263.” 15. Thereafter, on 26/03/2019, Ld…

M/S Nam Estates Pvt. Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/32/2013HC Karnataka07 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…I AGRO MILLS (P) LTD.’, (2018) 405 ITR 192 (KER), 6 ‘GURDAS GARG VS. CIT’, (2015) 63 TAXMANN.COM 289 (P & H), ‘SRI.LAXMI SATYANARAYANA OIL MILL VS. CIT’, (2014) 367 ITR 200 (AP), ‘SMT.HARSHILA CHORDIA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER’, (2008) 298 ITR 349 (RAJ), ‘WALFORD TRANSPORT (EASTERN INDIA) LTD. VS CIT’, (1999) 240 ITR 902 (GAU.), ‘CIT VS. THE SOLUTION’, (2016) 382 ITR 337 (RAJ), ‘ANUPAM TELE SERVICES VS. ITO’, (2014) 366 ITR 122 (GUJ), ‘HONEY ENTERPRISES VS. CIT’, (2016) 236 TAXMAN 519 (DEL), ‘GIRIDHARILAL GOENKA VS. CIT’, (1986) 179 ITR 122 (CAL), ‘R.C.GOEL VS. CIT’, (2013)…

Shri Gautam Sharma, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 120/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke Shri Gautam Sharma The Dcit Vs. 221-222, Shyam Nagar, Scheme, Pali Central Circle Link Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Awdps 1276 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Dated 12-02-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 147/ R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 Due To Prevailing Covid-19 Pandemic Condition, The Hearing Of The Appeal Is Concluded Through Video Conference. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.40.57 Lacs Paid Towards Purchase Of Land, By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 40A(3)

…V/s CIT (1985) 155 ITR 519 (Raj.). d. The Jariambhumi V/s CIT (1997) 225 ITR 517 (Gau.). e. CIT V/s Brugmohan Singh & Co. (1994) 209 ITR 753 (P&H). f. CIT V/s A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar & Sons (2007) 207 CTR (Mad.) 428. g. Smt. Harshila Chordia V/s ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj.) h. Mahender Singh & Part V/s DCIT (2006) 104 TTJ (Del.) 590. i. Jitu Builders P. Ltd. V/s ACIT (2009) 125 TTJ (Ahd.) (TM) 721. j. Debjyoti Dutta v. ITO (2020) 34 NYP TTJ 26 (Ctk) k. Aamby Valley Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) 198 TTJ 662 (Del) As per the ld. AR, in the instant the provision of section 40A(3) is not applicable in view of the various…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 68

…balance in the books of the assessee. The only criteria in this regard are that sales should be supported by the corresponding purchases. 23. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Harshiia Chordiavs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 in which it was held that "Addition u/s 68 could not be made in respect of the amount which was found to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to them". Also on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench in the case of M/s Heera Steel Limited vs ITO (2005) 4 ITJ 437 in which it was held that cash sales canno…