“mercantile system of accounting”

ICDS & AccountingSection 145Section 1451,487 judgments

The decision most relied on for mercantile system of accounting is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mercantile system of accounting

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. Excel Industries Ltd.

358 ITR 295 · 2013 · Supreme Court

935

citing judgments

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court

739

citing judgments

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

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.

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT

37 ITR 1 · 1959 · Supreme Court

341

citing judgments

When following the mercantile system of accounting, provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as deductions, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

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.

M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT

436 ITR 582 · 2021 · Supreme Court

308

citing judgments

Amendments to tax law that impose new obligations or change existing legal positions apply prospectively, even if stated to be "for the removal of doubts." The judgment also clarifies that deductions under Section 43B are allowed only on actual payment, overriding the mercantile system of accounting.

Judgments citing mercantile system of accounting

Virudhunagar Hindu Tholan, Virudhunagar vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1943/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

charitable. Furthermore, it has been shown by the appellant/assessee ITA Nos.1943 & 67/Chny/2025 Virudhunagar Hindu Tholan :: 6 :: that the appellant Trust has adopted the mercantile system of accounting for the financial year 2010-11 (assessment year 2011-12) for which depreciation of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is to be accepted which

Acc India Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4907/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Cost" so as to book the actual cost within the financial year. It was the Ld. AR’s contention that assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and the cost has been booked on accrual basis so as to arrive at the actual profit earned during

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 650/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot

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

ITA 372/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 372/Rjt/ 2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya Vs. Ito, Wd – 1(1)(3), Rajkot Vrajdham, Shardanagar Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Mabdi Road, Rajkot – 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgpp7067E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 09.09.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 04.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Upholding Validity Of Assessment U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Confirming Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- By Way Of Alleged Difference Between Sales As Per Annual Vat Return & Sales As Per Audited Accounts By Failing To Appreciate That The Alleged Difference Was Duly Reconciled & Explained.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

defined u/s.2(43) and income is defined Section 2 Sub Section 24 of the Income Tax Act. That according to the mercantile system of accounting the tax has to be separately shown in the books. That the alleged difference of Rs.1,11,13,196/- is due to inclusion of Excise

The Eluru Cooperative House Mortgage Society Ltd., Eluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Eluru

ITA 226/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 225 & 226/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2016-17) The Eluru Cooperative House Mortgage Society Limited Gopaluvari Street, Powerpet Station Road R.R.Pet, Eluru, West Godavari – 534002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat0060G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Income Tax Officer – Ward-1 Income Tax Office 23-B-4-6/4, Κ.K.S. Towers. R.R. Pet Eluru, Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व / Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व / Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeals Against The Separate Impugned Orders Of Even Date 28.06.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act') By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखासदस्य

The Eluru Cooperative House Mortgage Society Limited, Eluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Eluru

ITA 225/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 225 & 226/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2016-17) The Eluru Cooperative House Mortgage Society Limited Gopaluvari Street, Powerpet Station Road R.R.Pet, Eluru, West Godavari – 534002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat0060G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Income Tax Officer – Ward-1 Income Tax Office 23-B-4-6/4, Κ.K.S. Towers. R.R. Pet Eluru, Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व / Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व / Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeals Against The Separate Impugned Orders Of Even Date 28.06.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act') By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Dinesh Kumar Tak, Beawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Beawar

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

ITA 981/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

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

Capital Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai calling for certain informations. Based on the record available with Id. AO he noted that the assessee has adopted Mercantile System of accounting as per 3CD Report (Point No.13 a) in previous year also he has adopted mercantile system of accounting. On going through ... transferred for sale on 31.03.216 or is in hand and Global Report includes profit of those share also, when assessee is adopting mercantile system of accounting the profit is calculated on the basis of credit or paid whichever is earlier. The reconciliation submitted it is not clear that why Rs.27

Ankur Rice Industries Pvt Ltd., Etawah vs. ITO 2(2)(5), Etawah

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Ankur Rice Industries Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd, Ward-2(2)(5), Gaurapura, Etawah, Up Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadca4609H

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Sahgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56

genuine business liability arising to the assessee in the course of its business. The assessee is following mercantile system of accounting for computing the profits from the business which is not in dispute before us. While it is so, salary payable as on 31-3-2016 which remains outstanding

Income Tax Officer-1, Korba vs. M/S Budhia Auto, Main Road

Accordingly, ground no. 1 of the appeal of revenue stands dismissed and the disallowance made by Ld

ITA 158/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 158/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43B

expenditure nor did the assessee claim any deduction in respect of the amount and considering that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise.” 12. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is admitted position on record

Chandraiah Balana Kalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Aaykar Bhawan

ITA 4539/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which is dismissed vide impugned Order, dated 08/07/2025. The Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph No. 2 above.

For Appellant: Shri R. A. DhyaniFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Mantri

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250Section 43B

grounds reproduced in paragraph No. 2 above. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and had deposited VAT amount after due date of filling return of income. It was submitted that Assessee did not debit the said amount

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

interest if the principal amount is paid. Thus the interest debited to the account of the assessee is not recoverable. Even in the mercantile system of accounting, no income can be recognized unless there is reasonable certainty of its realisation in view of the fundamental accounting principal of prudence

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 495/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 270A

that the AO has proceeded on the wrong premise that the assessee is following “cash system of accounting” whereas the assessee is following “mercantile system of accounting” having been intimated to the AO vide letter dated 31.03.2021 which has been accepted by the Income Tax Department year after year ... annual report. 24. We have perused the schedule 9, particulary note 1(b) which says that the assessee trust is following “mercantile system of accounting”. We have also perused the assessment order passed by the AO for A.Y. 2013-14 wherein in the head note of the assessment order under

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

thereby affirming the orders of the authorities below, by invoking the 'Matching Concept'. It is observed by the High Court that under the mercantile system of accounting, book profits are liable to be taxed and in order to determine the net income of an Accounting Year, the revenue and other

DCIT, CC2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

Navkar Goa Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Wing Central Circle

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

ITA 3529/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailnavkar Goa Corporation, 810 Raheja Centre Free Press Journal Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ............... Appellant Pan : Aagfn2313K V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……………… Respondent Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Assessee By : Shri Aditya Sharma Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Aditya SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

High Court, the assessee had deposited INR 60 lakh. It was further submitted that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and therefore requires to record expenses in relation to the revenue earned. 4. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 23/12/2019 passed under section

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

profession" or "Income from other sources" shall, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. (2) The Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time to time income computation and disclosure