37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd.

1 SOT 90Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#10922 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 69CSection 68Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

section 111abogus long term capital gainaddition under section 68penny stocksection 10(38)principal commissioner of income-taxsection 69caddition u/s 68accommodation entrygenuineness of the transactionunexplained expendituresection 133

Judgments citing 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Rajshri Iron Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 2388/KOL/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

…e place of proof. . For this proposition one may refer to decisions in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd.63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewala v. ITO(2004) 1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel(2016) 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.). 24. It is further submitted that the findings of the AO in the concluding portion of the order of assessment (Page-28) was as follows: ……there is no iota of evidence in assessee's submi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Rajshri Iron Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 2385/KOL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

…e place of proof. . For this proposition one may refer to decisions in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd.63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewala v. ITO(2004) 1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel(2016) 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.). 24. It is further submitted that the findings of the AO in the concluding portion of the order of assessment (Page-28) was as follows: ……there is no iota of evidence in assessee's submi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(2), Nagpur vs. Vidarbha Infotech Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 44ASection 69C

…idence. For this proposition assessee relies on Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewala v. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.).” 6. The learned CIT(A), considering the above submissions of the assessee, deleted the addition of ` 7.50 crore made by the Assessing Officer under 9 Vidarbha Infotech P…

Aditya Baheti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 562/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Khandelwal, C.A ( V.H.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 562/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 Aditya Baheti cuke Income Tax Officer, G-7, Kabir Marg, Bani Park, Vs. Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFFPB5970A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Ms. Nupur Khandelwal, C.A ( V.H.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Smt. Mo…

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Viral Saraf Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…f evidence as held in the decisions reported in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewala v. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.). These principles enunciated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy.CIT [1999] 7…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…nn.com 512/225 Taxman 107 (Delhi) (Mag.)].  Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC),  Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC),  CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC)  Anil Tibrewala v. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum);  CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 (SC);  Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC); Page No. | 13 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO  Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.).  Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal Vs. DCIT (2019) 33 NYPTTJ 740 (Mum.)(Trib.)  Smt. Karuna Garg Vs. ITO (2019) 178 ITD 823 (Delh…

Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kanpur vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…icial quotation issued by Magadh Stock Exchange, therefore, there cannot be any reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale transaction of the shares. It is settled position of law by the decisions reported in 26ITR 776(SC), 37 ITR 288(SC), 63 ITR 449(SC) and 1 SOT 90 (Mum) (supra) that suspicion how so ever strong cannot take place of the character of evidence. In this case it is seen that appellant brought on record all plausible evidences as is expected in these transaction, however, the AO has not brought any material on record to disprove the evidences as adduced by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court i…

Income Tax Officer-1(3), Kanpur vs. Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Kanpur

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

ITA 205/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…icial quotation issued by Magadh Stock Exchange, therefore, there cannot be any reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale transaction of the shares. It is settled position of law by the decisions reported in 26ITR 776(SC), 37 ITR 288(SC), 63 ITR 449(SC) and 1 SOT 90 (Mum) (supra) that suspicion how so ever strong cannot take place of the character of evidence. In this case it is seen that appellant brought on record all plausible evidences as is expected in these transaction, however, the AO has not brought any material on record to disprove the evidences as adduced by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court i…

Sarita Bagdi, Indore vs. The ITO Ward-4(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewalav. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum) to support that suspicion even strong enough cannot take the character of evidence. • Himani M. Vakilv. DIT [IT Appeal No. 3106] (ITAT Ahd.) : In this case, it was observed that the assessee had furnished complete details before the A.O. which were not found false or bogus by the A.O. and only on doubts and suspicion the A.O. treated the capit…

37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1 SOT 90) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax