← All Phrases

“Section 145(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 145Section 145(1)129 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 145(1) is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 145(1)

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 363 · 1971 · Supreme Court
654
citing judgments

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

CIT v. President Industries
258 ITR 654 · 2002 · High Court
471
citing judgments

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

Judgments citing Section 145(1)

Janakkumar Mukundprasad Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bardoli, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee does not maintain quantitative tally stock as is evident from the report of the auditors in form No.3CD. Therefore, provisions of section 145(1) are applicable and the g.p. is required to be estimated. I, therefore, worked out at Rs.29,16,850/- as against this g.p. shown was Rs.10

Income Tax Officer-22(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Sambhav Shelter, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 811/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.811/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito-22(3)(6) बिधम/ Sambhav Shelter, Room No.206, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, V 55, Dr E Moses Road Mumbai-400012. Worli Next To Furniturewala Showroom, Mumbai-400018. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abgfs8321M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Ganensh Rakh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.01.2023 For The Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,73,36,141/- Made By The Ao After Rejecting The Books Of Account Of The Assessee & Estimating The Profit @ 8% Of The Revenue Recognized.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ganensh Rakh (Sr. AR)
Section 145(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Biren Suresh Karani, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1577/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

with the accounting standard notified u/s 145(2) of the Act. Therefore, condition for invoking section 145(3) of the Act as per section 145(1) & (2) of the Act was not satisfied. However, if the expenses/sales are not verifiable (if there is deficiency in vouchers/bills supporting the incurrence

Biren Suresh Karani, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1077/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

with the accounting standard notified u/s 145(2) of the Act. Therefore, condition for invoking section 145(3) of the Act as per section 145(1) & (2) of the Act was not satisfied. However, if the expenses/sales are not verifiable (if there is deficiency in vouchers/bills supporting the incurrence

Biren Suresh Karani, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(3), Mum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1076/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

with the accounting standard notified u/s 145(2) of the Act. Therefore, condition for invoking section 145(3) of the Act as per section 145(1) & (2) of the Act was not satisfied. However, if the expenses/sales are not verifiable (if there is deficiency in vouchers/bills supporting the incurrence

Mahendrakumar Gulraj Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1120/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1120/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mahendrakumar Gulraj Jain बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(3) Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, C/O D. C. Bothra & Co. Vs. Llp (Formerly Known As Matru Mandir, Tardeo D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Road, Mumbai-400007. Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpj2988D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.03.2023 For Ay. 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing 12.50% Of Purchases Amounting Of Rs.2,16,63,455/- Made From Two (2) Dealers (M/S. Anand Deep Metal & M/S. Viraj Steel & Alloys). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 15.09.2010 For Ay. 2010-11 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,39,169/-. & The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 23.03.2016. The Ao Noted That He Received An Information From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai From Which He Understood

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 44A

with the accounting standard notified u/s 145(2) of the Act. Therefore, condition for invoking section 145(3) of the Act as per section 145(1) & (2) of the Act was not satisfied. However, if the expenses/sales are not verifiable (if there is deficiency in vouchers/bills supporting the incurrence

Mr. Mahesh C Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 838/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.838/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Mahesh C Shah बिधम/ Cit(A)-6 3Rd Floor, Room No. 10, A B-208, Ramdev Park Chsl, Vs. Chandavarkar Road, Next To Wing, Mittal Court, Sp Mukherjee Garden, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Borivali (West)-400002. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps1521R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-06, Mumbai Dated 15.03.2019 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of A Firm Named M/S. Haresh Trading Co, Which Is Dealing With Trading Of Electrical Components. The Assessee Had Filed The Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 For Ay. 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,09,973/-. Later, The Assessment Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Recording The Reasons. The Ao Noted That He Received Information From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That During The Relevant Year, The Assessee Had Dealt With Thirteen (13) Parties Who Were Hawala Operators Which Information The Investigation Wing (Dgit) Received

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148

with the accounting standard notified u/s 145(2) of the Act. Therefore, condition for invoking section 145(3) of the Act as per section 145(1) & (2) of the Act was not satisfied. However, if the expenses/sales are not verifiable (if there is deficiency in vouchers/bills supporting the incurrence