287 (Cal), Gopi Nath Agarwala Vs CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753 (All), United Patel Construction Co. v. CIT

211 ITR 178High Court1995#13787 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing 287 (Cal), Gopi Nath Agarwala Vs CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753 (All), United Patel Construction Co. v. CIT

RAM KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…1 (Assam), CIT Vs Gokaldas Hukumchand (1943) 11 ITR 462 (Bom), Narayan Chandra Baidya Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287 (Cal), Gopi Nath Agarwala Vs CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753 (All), United Patel Construction Co. Vs CIT (1966) 59 ITR 424 (M.P), CIT Vs R.Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 178 (Raj). 1.18 In other words, the assessment must be baser) not on mere suspicion or bare guess, but on legitimate material from which a reasonable inference of income having been earned during the accounting year could be drawn and that the initial burden of finding such material, however slight, is on the Income-tax authorities not on the assesse…

SHRI PATEL ENTERPRISES,,KORBA(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- KORBA,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in terms of our observations as discussed herein above

ITA 112/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.112/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) M/S Patel Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-Korba A-3, Vikas Complex, First Floor, Power House Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan No. : Aajfm 0718 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 251

…profit rate merely on presumptions and surmises, are not sustainable. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the decisions in (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills (1954) 26 ITR 775(SC); (2) Maheshchand v CIT (1993) 199 ITR 247 (All.); (3) R.Y Durlabhij, (1995) 211 ITR 178 (Raj.) and various other decisions mentioned therein. (a) The impugned addition made on presumptions and surmises is unsustainable in view of the Supreme Court decision in 219 ITR 330 (SC) wherein it was held that there cannot be tax on income on presumptive basis. Income in fact earned is only taxable and not 5 the one presumed to have been earn…

ITO, WARD 2(5), KALYAN vs. M/S BHARAT FOOD PRODUCTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2765/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 2(5) V. M/S. Bharat Food Products 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Bldg., Plot No. 02, Waco Compound Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada Industrial Area Kalyan (W), Kalyan Ulhasnagar - 421004 Mumbai - 421301 Pan: Aabfb1403H (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Amrita Singh

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh

Section 143(1)Section 147

…(Mum) (Trib) (ITA No.6727/M/2012 dt20/8/2014, Bench 'D' A.Y. 2009-10), Honourable Mumbai Tribunal has held: "that suspicion of highest degree cannot take place of evidence." (ii) In the case of: Dakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd, 26 ITR 775 (SC) and R. Y. Duriabji (211 ITR 178, Rajasthan) it was held that any assessment made on pure guess work de hors material on record is a bad assessment. (iii) In the case of Jagdamba Trading Company vs. Income Tax Officer IT AT, JODHPUR 'SMC' Bench (2007) 107 TTJ 0398 it was 5 M/s. Bharat Food Products held that merely on the basis of the deposition made by the said seller in his af…

ITO 2(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. GRANDIOSE JEWELLERY P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4Th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaagca5371D अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By Shri Rahul Raman, Cit Dr : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2020

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील िं./ ITA No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/s Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAAGCA5371D अपीलार्थी की ओ…

THE ACIT CEN CIR-13, MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURESH V. JAIN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…andra Baidya v. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287. 55 I.T.A. No. 5091 & 4198/Mum/2007 & CO-261/Mum/2007 Shri Suresh V. Jain f) GopiNathAgarwala v. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753 (All) g) United Patel Construction Co. v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 424 (MP). h) CIT v. R. Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 178 (Raj.) i) BanshidharOnkarmall v. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Orissa). j) CIT v. Kameshwar Singh (1933) 1 ITR 94. k) Seth NathuramMunnalal v. CIT 25 ITR 216 (Nag.) In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) the H'ble Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment withou…

MAMTA GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 280/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 280/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mamta Gupta, cuke I.T.O., Vs. 29, Kailashpuri, Tonk Ward 6(3), Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFCPG 4368 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri H.M. Singhvi & Shri Arun Gangwal (CAs). jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Varinder…

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…Palekar & Ors. (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) 74-75 7 CIT v. Haji jan Mohd. Gaur (2004) 267 ITR 765 (Raj.) 75 8 Add. CIT v. karnail Singh V. Kaleran (1974) 94 ITR 505 (P&H) 75-76 9 V. Ramaswami Naidu v. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 341 (Mad) 76 10 CIT v. R.Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 178 ( Raj) 76-77 11 Prahlad maliram v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 149 (Raj) 77 12 Kalwa Devadattam & Ors. V. UOI & Ors. (1963) 49 ITR 165 (SC) 77 13 CIT v. Suresh Kumar Goyal (2004) 32 tax World 128 (Raj) 78 In the instant case, additions have been made without discharging the heavy burden where unexplained investment is alleged. Evidences have to be conclu…