Dewas Soya Ltd., Ujjain vs Department Of Income Tax on 12 April, 2012
The Hon'ble Indore ITAT Bench in the case of DEWAS SOYA LTD,
UJJAIN vs. Income Tax (Appeal No. 336/lnd /2012 has held that,"
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs Dcit, Bangalore on 10 April, 2018
Similar decision has been given by
the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai in various cases such as Shri Raju Dinesh Kumar
vs DCIT in ITA No. 1321/Chny/2023 dated 19.01.2024 & Amar Sparklers
Factory v. ITO in ITA No. 808/Chny/2023 dated 11.10.2023. Similar findings
have been given by various benches of the Hon'ble ITAT. Thus, the SBNs
received by an assessee during normal course of business cannot be treated
as income of the assessee if source for the same is established.
Purani Hospital Supplies Private ... vs Dcit Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore on 31 May, 2023
13. The appellant has also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Chennai Benches in
the case of M/s. Purani Hospitals Suppliers Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, in ITA NO.
489/Chny/2022, dated 31.05.2023. The Tribunal under identical set of facts and
in light of cash deposits during demonetization period has held as under:
Acit, Central Circle- 28 , New Delhi vs Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi on 31 October, 2019
12. At this stage, it is relevant to consider certain judicial precedents relied
upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the
assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Agson
Global Pvt Ltd vs ACIT [2022] 325 CTR 001. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court
held that additions made on the sole ground of deviation in the ratio of cash
sales and cash deposits during the demonetization period with that of
earlier period, is improper and unlawful.
Umamaheswari, Coimbatore vs Ito , Coimbatore on 14 October, 2022
6.3.5. The appellant has claimed that the balance cash deposits of Rs.2,57,04,124/-
have been made out of cash collection made during the demonetization period, out of
which an amount of Rs.1,07,17,948/- pertains to pharmacy sales and balance of
Rs.1,49,86,176/- pertains to Hospital Services. Further, out of the said deposit of
Rs.2,57,04,124/-, an amount of Rs.1,43,13,000/-has been deposited in Specified Bank
Notes (SBN). The appellant has also furnished copy of VAT returns filed by the
appellant for November 2016 & December 2016 to prove the genuineness of sale of
pharmacy items. In the remand report, the AO has stated that the Ministry of Finance,
Department of Economic Affairs had permitted use of SBNs in pharmacies from
09.11.2016 until 11.11.2016 and then subsequently extended till 24.11.2016 only.
Further, the AO has stated that all the establishments which were allowed to accept
SBNs between 09.11.2016 to 24.11.2016 were also required to maintain complete
account of record of stock and sale of transactions made with the SBNs during this
period but the appellant did not furnish any such details during the remand
proceedings. The issue that arises to be considered is whether the SBNs received by
an assessee during demonetization period in its normal course of business has to be
considered as income of the assessee or not. A similar issue was considered by the
Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai in the case of Mrs. Umamaheswari Vs. ITO in ITA
No.527/Chny/2022 dated 14.10.2022, wherein it was held that there is no prohibition
under the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, to deal with
Specified Bank Notes up to 31.12.2016. The relevant part of the order of Hon'ble ITAT
is reproduced as under:
Micky Fireworks Industries, Sivakasi vs Acit Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai on 26 July, 2023
Further, relying on the above order, the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai allowed the
assessee's appeal in the case of Mis. Micky Fireworks Industries vs ACIT in
ITA No 264/Chny/2023 dated 26.07.2023.
Ito, New Delhi vs M/S. Ravi Jem & Jewellery Exports Pvt. ... on 31 December, 2018
12. Coming back to case laws relied upon by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the
assessee has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Chennai Benches in ITO vs Sahana
Jewellery Exports Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 999/Chny/2022. The ITAT Chennai Benches,
under identical set of facts and also in respect of cash deposits during
demonetization period held that, when source for cash deposits has been explained
out of cash sales made during the period, then cash sales made by the assessee
cannot be treated as unexplained credit taxable u/s. 68 of the Act. The relevant
findings of the Tribunal are as under:
Vidhiyasekaran Pradeep Malliraj, ... vs Ito,Non Corp Ward-1(6), Madurai on 7 February, 2023
14. Coming back to decision relied upon by the ld. DR, in the case of M/s.
Vidhiyasekaran Pradeep Malliraj vs ITO (Supra).
Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs Dcit, Chennai on 29 January, 2018
We have gone through case law
relied upon by the ld. DR, and we find that, in the said case, the Tribunal after
considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apex Laboratories
(P) Ltd vs DCIT (135 Taxmann.com 236), held that, one arm of the law cannot be
utilized to defeat the other arm of law and doing so would be opposed to public
policy and bring the law into ridicule. In our considered view, the case law relied
upon by the ld. DR is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple
reason that, the Tribunal has not considered the facts of cash deposits in light of
explanation offered by the assessee with regard to source for cash deposits.
However, it went on the legal issue of validity of legal tender of specified bank
notes after 08.11.2016.
1