← All Phrases

“rejection of books of account”

ICDS & AccountingSection 145(3)Section 145(3)1,303 judgments

The decision most relied on for rejection of books of account is Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288), cited in 570 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rejection of books of account

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.

Kachwala Gems v. JCIT
288 ITR 10 · 2007 · Supreme Court
332
citing judgments

In a best judgment assessment, some guesswork is inherent, but the estimate must be fair and not arbitrary. Books of account can be rejected under Section 145(3) if the assessee fails to substantiate entries or prove the genuineness of transactions, leading to estimation of income.

Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT
49 ITR 112 · 1963 · Supreme Court
281
citing judgments

An assessee must explain the source of entries in their account books and prove that the sums are not income; the department is not initially required to prove anything. However, the department cannot unreasonably reject a good explanation, thereby converting valid proof into no proof.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali
90 ITR 271 · 1973 · Supreme Court
232
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

N.K. Proteins Ltd. v. DCIT
84 Taxmann.com 195 · 2017 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

When purchases are found to be entirely bogus and based on fictitious invoices from non-existent or unconfirmed suppliers, the entire amount of such purchases is liable to be added back as unexplained expenditure, not merely a percentage thereof.

Indwell Constructions v. CIT
232 ITR 776 · 1998 · High Court
188
citing judgments

When an assessee's income is estimated after rejecting their books of account, further additions or disallowances for specific expenses are generally not permissible, as the estimation already accounts for these.

Sargam Cinema v. CIT
328 ITR 513 · 2010 · Supreme Court
172
citing judgments

For an Assessing Officer to make a valid reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for the estimation of the cost of construction, the books of accounts must first be rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing rejection of books of account

Isha Metal Stores, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.756/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Counsel for the assessee was that the estimated GP addition @22.17% on unrecorded sales made by the A.O without rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) is illegal, unsustainable and bad in law and liable to be deleted ... further submitted that if at all, additions were to be made by the A.O, in such circumstances, the A.O need to have rejected the books of account first and only after that he could have proceeded to make addition over and above the transaction reflected in the books of account

Dakappagari Naveen Kumar, Medak vs. ITO., Ward - 1, Sangareddy

ITA 911/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.911/Hyd/2024

For Respondent: CA A Srinivas
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69ASection 80C

well as facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) ought to have observed that the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the IT Act without appreciating the facts of the case properly and judiciously proceeded to complete the assessment u/s.143 ... ITA.No.911/Hyd./2024 3. Ground no.1 is general in nature and not requires any specific adjudication. 4. Ground nos.2 and 3 regarding rejection of books of accounts. 5. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee and learned DR. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee submitted that though

ITO-23(3)(6).Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6132/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

For Appellant: Shri Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 68

submissions of the assessee, in the context of the facts and materials on record, ld. First appellate authority, though, agreed that before rejection of books of accounts, the A.O. has not provided any opportunity of being heard, however, instead of deciding the appeal on merits, he restored the issues back ... persons to whom sales were made, the A.O. has treated the cash sales as concocted and made the addition after rejecting the books of account. He submitted, while rejecting the books of account, the A.O. has neither provided any opportunity to the assessee to have its say on the correctness

M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Circle 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5754/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

For Appellant: Shri Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 68

submissions of the assessee, in the context of the facts and materials on record, ld. First appellate authority, though, agreed that before rejection of books of accounts, the A.O. has not provided any opportunity of being heard, however, instead of deciding the appeal on merits, he restored the issues back ... persons to whom sales were made, the A.O. has treated the cash sales as concocted and made the addition after rejecting the books of account. He submitted, while rejecting the books of account, the A.O. has neither provided any opportunity to the assessee to have its say on the correctness

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Raipur

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 455/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 455/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh, New Purena, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Ravigram, Ravigram S O, Civil Lines, Raipur, C. G., 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Ajnps2776H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69C

invoke 145(3) of the Act is merely declaratory/discretionary and not mandatory, where the legislature had no intention to prescribe the mandatory rejection of books of accounts in each & every case where some specific entry in accounts have been found to be bogus/inflated or unverifiable but largely the accounts maintained ... other 15 DCIT, Circle-1(1) vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh consequences. Thus, the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) on non-rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Act, according to us, has nothing to do with the applicability of the section

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal HUF, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Cent Cir Mzf, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the

ITA 302/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 147

auditor shave expressed their opinion that the assessee was not doing the business of food grains. On the issue of non rejection of books of accounts not even doubting the purchases , the Id. DR prayed before the bench that the appeals may be restored to the file ... were later produced, examined, and no defect was pointed out therein. The assessee also pointed out that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account under section 145(3), which itself demonstrated that the books were accepted as reliable. 2.1.4.6. With regard to the alleged non-availability

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur vs. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal HUF, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 301/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

auditor shave expressed their opinion that the assessee was not doing the business of food grains. On the issue of non rejection of books of accounts not even doubting the purchases , the ld. DR prayed before the bench that the appeals may be restored to the file ... were later produced, examined, and no defect was pointed out therein. The assessee also pointed out that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account under section 145(3), which itself demonstrated that the books were accepted as reliable. 2.1.4.6. With regard to the alleged non-availability

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur vs. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal HUF, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 291/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

auditor shave expressed their opinion that the assessee was not doing the business of food grains. On the issue of non rejection of books of accounts not even doubting the purchases , the ld. DR prayed before the bench that the appeals may be restored to the file ... were later produced, examined, and no defect was pointed out therein. The assessee also pointed out that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account under section 145(3), which itself demonstrated that the books were accepted as reliable. 2.1.4.6. With regard to the alleged non-availability

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Muzaffarpur vs. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal HUF, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the

ITA 290/PAT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 147

auditor shave expressed their opinion that the assessee was not doing the business of food grains. On the issue of non rejection of books of accounts not even doubting the purchases , the Id. DR prayed before the bench that the appeals may be restored to the file ... were later produced, examined, and no defect was pointed out therein. The assessee also pointed out that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account under section 145(3), which itself demonstrated that the books were accepted as reliable. 2.1.4.6. With regard to the alleged non-availability

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Muzaffarpur vs. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal HUF, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the

ITA 289/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 147

auditor shave expressed their opinion that the assessee was not doing the business of food grains. On the issue of non rejection of books of accounts not even doubting the purchases , the Id. DR prayed before the bench that the appeals may be restored to the file ... were later produced, examined, and no defect was pointed out therein. The assessee also pointed out that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account under section 145(3), which itself demonstrated that the books were accepted as reliable. 2.1.4.6. With regard to the alleged non-availability

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 633/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

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

action of the AO in estimating the business income @ 8% of total turnover/work receipts without considering the submissions made by the appellant, rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and the expenditure is genuine since the TDS was deducted. The appellant not pressed the ground no.7 ... action of the AO in rejecting the books u/s. 145(3) is justified. In the absence of the same, the AO rejected the books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and estimated the business income @8% of the total turnover/work receipts by relied on the various case laws

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 632/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

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

action of the AO in estimating the business income @ 8% of total turnover/work receipts without considering the submissions made by the appellant, rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and the expenditure is genuine since the TDS was deducted. The appellant not pressed the ground no.7 ... action of the AO in rejecting the books u/s. 145(3) is justified. In the absence of the same, the AO rejected the books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and estimated the business income @8% of the total turnover/work receipts by relied on the various case laws

Ambalal Haridas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2607/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 68

requires to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts u/s.145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without pointing out any specific defect or discrepancy in the books of accounts maintained. Ambalal Haridas ... before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised several grounds challenging the computation of total income, rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Act, addition of cash deposits under section 68 of the Act, estimation of net profit by applying

Aaditya Construction, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer-I Korba, Korba

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 536/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 536/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aaditya Construction, Vs Income Tax Officer- 1, Korba 56, Indira Complex, Transport Nagar, Mahanadi Extension Complex, Korba-495001, C.G. Ghantaghar, Niharika Road, Kashi Nagar, Korba-495677, C.G. Pan: Aapfa5390N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 44A

arbitrary, illegal and not justified. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating income on adhoc basis despite disagreeing to AO’s rejection of books of account. 5. The appellant reserve the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal.” 3. The relevant facts giving rise ... Based on the above observation and some more similar observations as mentioned in the assessment order, the Ld. AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and applied Net Profit (‘NP’) rate of 12.50% before the claim of deduction of interest, depreciation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Freightbridge Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7792/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/w Mr. Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44B

these vendors either the no information for filing of ITR, either not to declare any business income. Accordingly, the Ld. AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee and estimated the net profit at the rate of 8% to the total turn over. The assessee declared the turnover during ... total income of Rs.9,31,33,090/- on a turnover of Rs.353.68 crores for the year under consideration. The Ld. AO rejected the books of account primarily on the ground that confirmations from all trade creditors were not furnished and that certain major vendors had filed nil or non-business

Din Dayal Jalan Textiles Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7678/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardin Dayal Jalan Textile Acit-4(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 642, 6Th 904-5, Royal Square, 9Th Vs. Floor, Aayakr Floor, 173, Dr. Vigas Bhavan, Queen Street, Mumbai-400 002 Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcd2310E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D. C. Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2Section 69A

department has not raised any objection as to the accuracy of the books of accounts or made any effort to reject the books of accounts. 3. The Appellants Crave leave to add, amend, alter, delete the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of appeal. 11. During the course ... dates or bills were referred to, and no flow of funds was established. It was submitted that estimation of income without rejection of books of account is without jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles. The figure of Rs. 33.33 crore, according to the learned AR, is merely derived by reverse

M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

liable to be quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) upheld the addition without appreciating that Ld. A. O. rejected the books of account and instead of estimating the Net Profit, additions were made on the basis of same books of account by disallowing expenses under different heads total ... Travelling and Loading Expenses Rs. 6,75,655/-. Inspite of the fact, the Ld. A. O. has rejected the books of account. Further all the expenses were verifiable and incurred solely and exclusively for the purpose of business, hence the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 8,32,144/- upheld should

Guhana Educational Society, Suryapet vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 784/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.784/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Guhana Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 2-1-65, Kasturi Bazar Exemption Ward-1(2) Suryapet-508213 Aayakar Bhavan Telangana Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Telangana Pan: Aaaag5294R (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Guhana Educational Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Mumbai (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dated 13.03.2025 For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law; 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Account & In Resorting To Estimation Of Income At 8% Of The Receipts Of Rs.2,58,90,677/-;

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

erroneous both on facts and in law; 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account and in resorting to estimation of income at 8% of the receipts of Rs.2,58,90,677/-; ITA 784/Hyd/2025 Guhana Educational Society ... basis of self-made vouchers without producing proper supporting bills or third-party evidences. On account of these deficiencies, the Ld. AO rejected the books of account of the assessee and estimated the income at 8% of the gross receipts of Rs.2,58,90,677/-, resulting in an assessed income

Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kasturi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3926/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3926/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Hemant Kumar, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, R. No. 316A, 3Rd Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बिाम Vs. Kasturi Jewellers P. Ltd., Gg-1/140A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110018 .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aacck-7027-J

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Atul Puri, Chartered Accountant
Section 115BSection 139ASection 68

purchases and closing balances), cash book, sale bills, sales recorded in the books during the survey conducted 8 by the AO; no rejection of books of accounts. Under these circumstances, the additions made u/s.68 of the Act by the AO by holding that the sales are notgenuine based on ratios

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Moradabad vs. Ritu Bhandula, Moradabad

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and assessee cross

ITA 2750/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 133(6)Section 69ASection 69C

Taxmann.com 76 held that in the absence of any material pointing towards falsehood of account books, addition of gross profit and rejection of books of accounts cannot be made. In the present case it is noted that the books of accounts of the assessee are audited and have not been