← All Phrases

“Section 145(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 145Section 145(3)2,270 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 145(3) is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 145(3)

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.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court
391
citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

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.

Judgments citing Section 145(3)

Deupty Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Karamtara Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7974/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Have Proceeded On The Footing That The Issue Involved Is Common & Covered By The Tribunal’S Decision In Assessee’S Own Case For Earlier Years, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Karamtara Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7973/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Have Proceeded On The Footing That The Issue Involved Is Common & Covered By The Tribunal’S Decision In Assessee’S Own Case For Earlier Years, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Jitendra Kumar Agarwal HUF, Agra vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 454/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Sagar Dwellings P Ltd, Near Sun Temple Gwalior vs. ACIT, Faceless

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 373/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

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

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 and remuneration to partners. Accordingly ... been challenged by the Revenue in appeal. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on rejection of books of account under section 145(3) of the Act does not absolve the assessee with the defects in maintenance of books of account though those are not found sufficient for rejection

ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

noted these arguments and held them to be technically correct because the provisions under section 145(3) had not been specifically invoked in the assessment order. Therefore, only the profit on turnover could be assessed as the amounts spent on genuine purchases had to be allowed. He looked

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

rate is wholly arbitrary. No defect in the books of account of the assessee was pointed out. The books were not rejected under section 145(3) of the Act. No independent evidence of any transaction amounting to Rs. 33.33 crore was brought on record. No purchaser or supplier was identified

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Shiv Shakti Constructions, Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 578/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shiv Shakti Constructions Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Tax Chowk, Greater Noida, Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Uttar Pradesh Sector-33 Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R & Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- Vs Shiv Shakti Constructions Tax A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Central Circle-Ii, Chowk, Greater Noida, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Sector-33 Uttar Pradesh Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

34/D/2023: Shiv Shakti Constructions VS DCIT, & ITA No. 578/DEL/2023: DCIT VS Shiv Shakti Constructions should be estimated in the light of provisions of section 145(3) of IT Act. The AR relied on the written submission furnished before the AO as well as in the appellate proceeding and submitted that ... been produced in the body of assessment order, I hereby hold that books of accounts of appellant are not reliable. Therefore provisions of section 145(3) of IT Act are hereby invoked since the undersigned is not satisfied about the correctness of the accounts of the assessee. In the light

Shiv Shakti Constructions, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 34/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shiv Shakti Constructions Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Tax Chowk, Greater Noida, Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Uttar Pradesh Sector-33 Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R & Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- Vs Shiv Shakti Constructions Tax A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Central Circle-Ii, Chowk, Greater Noida, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Sector-33 Uttar Pradesh Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

34/D/2023: Shiv Shakti Constructions VS DCIT, & ITA No. 578/DEL/2023: DCIT VS Shiv Shakti Constructions should be estimated in the light of provisions of section 145(3) of IT Act. The AR relied on the written submission furnished before the AO as well as in the appellate proceeding and submitted that ... been produced in the body of assessment order, I hereby hold that books of accounts of appellant are not reliable. Therefore provisions of section 145(3) of IT Act are hereby invoked since the undersigned is not satisfied about the correctness of the accounts of the assessee. In the light

Badrinath Sales Private Limited, Adityapur, West Singhbhum vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1 Jsr, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/RAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

beyond six years. Therefore, the reassessment is void ab initio. On merits, it was submitted hat books of account were never rejected under section 145(3)of the ac and no discrepancy in physical stock was found. The additions were made merely on suspicion due to fall in turnover

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

recorded his dissatisfaction with the completeness and correctness of the books of accounts and recorded his decision to invoke the provision of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The ld. AO recorded that the assessee had claimed large amounts under project development expenses. However, the assessee ... shown in the balance-sheet but on account of the failure of the assessee to produce it, he held that the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act had been correctly invoked. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter proceeded to examine, whether after rejecting the books of accounts

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8693/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee from its business. For such reason, the books of account of the assessee to the extent of these purchases were rejected under Section 145(3) of the Act. On such premise, the Assessing Officer, however, estimated that the benefit on account of difference in the purchase price amounted

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8692/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee from its business. For such reason, the books of account of the assessee to the extent of these purchases were rejected under Section 145(3) of the Act. On such premise, the Assessing Officer, however, estimated that the benefit on account of difference in the purchase price amounted

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Netech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8691/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee from its business. For such reason, the books of account of the assessee to the extent of these purchases were rejected under Section 145(3) of the Act. On such premise, the Assessing Officer, however, estimated that the benefit on account of difference in the purchase price amounted

Mahaveera Rice World (Now Known As Mahavira Rice World LLP), Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 46(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6419/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

6419_DEL_2025_Mahaveera Rice World IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR

Zeta Buildtech Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3449/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

grounds, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowances of expenses without rejecting the books of account as per provisions of section 145(3) of the Act AMD therefore, disallowances of expenses is not tenable in law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, DLEETE, modify / amend

R J Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7715/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delivery challans, transportation details or other primary evidences to establish the genuineness of purchases. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act. However, since the sales declared by the assessee were not doubted, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element embedded in such ... reopened on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department alleging bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer rejected the books under section 145(3) and estimated the profit element embedded in the purchases at 12.5 percent and further made an addition towards alleged commission. Penalty under section

R J Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7714/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delivery challans, transportation details or other primary evidences to establish the genuineness of purchases. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act. However, since the sales declared by the assessee were not doubted, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element embedded in such ... reopened on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department alleging bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer rejected the books under section 145(3) and estimated the profit element embedded in the purchases at 12.5 percent and further made an addition towards alleged commission. Penalty under section

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

Books of Account Not Rejected Whether Necessary? Para 12: It is not an absolute legal requirement to first reject the books under section 145(3) before making additions under section 68; section 68 operates independently if entries are unexplained (see CIT v Bedi and Co 230 ITR 580 SC; Raja ... made with regard to cash deposits which form part of the turnover of an assessee. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not invoked section 145(3) of the Act to reject the method of accounting or the books of account maintained by the appellant. In the absence of such a finding

Alfa Modern Mobiles Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Cr Building

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

ITA 5701/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Alfa Modern Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-24/2, Naraina Industrial Ward-2(1) Area, Phase-I, C.R. Building New Delhi-110028. Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaica6087C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Goel, Ca & Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44ASection 46ASection 69A

ITA No.5701/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI