What is Arjun Singh v. CWT authority for?

An admission is strong evidence but not conclusive, and the person who made it can show it is incorrect.

How many judgments cite Arjun Singh v. CWT?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite Arjun Singh v. CWT (175 ITR 91), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Arjun Singh v. CWT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 132(4), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 37(1), Section 133A.

Arjun Singh v. CWT (175 ITR 91)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. 61 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others (b) The landmark verdict was followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi in case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91. (c) Further reliance can also be placed on the judgement of the apex court in case of Nagubai Armul v. B Sharma Rao AIR 1956 SC 100 wherein it was held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. (d) In y…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. 61 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others (b) The landmark verdict was followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi in case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91. (c) Further reliance can also be placed on the judgement of the apex court in case of Nagubai Armul v. B Sharma Rao AIR 1956 SC 100 wherein it was held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. (d) In y…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -05, Delhi

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. 61 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others (b) The landmark verdict was followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi in case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91. (c) Further reliance can also be placed on the judgement of the apex court in case of Nagubai Armul v. B Sharma Rao AIR 1956 SC 100 wherein it was held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. (d) In y…

Sachin Verma, Hapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 59/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…mission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. The landmark verdict was followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court of Delhi in case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91. Further reliance can also be placed on the judgement of the apex court in case of NagubaiArmul V. B Sharma Rao AIR 1956 SC 100 wherein it was held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assesseewho made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In yet another…

Kamal Kant Verma, Hapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 53/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…mission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. The landmark verdict was followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court of Delhi in case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91. Further reliance can also be placed on the judgement of the apex court in case of NagubaiArmul V. B Sharma Rao AIR 1956 SC 100 wherein it was held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assesseewho made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In yet another…

M/S Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt Ltd, Hapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 45/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…mission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. The landmark verdict was followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court of Delhi in case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91. Further reliance can also be placed on the judgement of the apex court in case of NagubaiArmul V. B Sharma Rao AIR 1956 SC 100 wherein it was held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assesseewho made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In yet another…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Naval Kishore, Kota

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…sive. It is open to the appellant who made the admission to show that it is incorrect and the appellant should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not disclose the correct state of facts" Also refer S. Arjun Singh v. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91/[1988] 41 Taxman 272 (Del.). Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi AIR 1960 SC 100: The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an admission is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon and, though not conclusive, yet could be decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. In Satinder Kumar…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3662/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2818/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 2819/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] Mahagun India Pvt Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T B-66, 1st Floor, Vivek Vihar Central Circle – 3 Delhi New Delhi PAN – AAACM 6572 A ITA No. 3661/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 3662/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. Mahagun India Pvt Ltd B-66, 1st Floor, Vivek Vihar Central Circle – 3 New Delhi Delhi PAN – AAACM 6572 A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3661/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2818/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 2819/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] Mahagun India Pvt Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T B-66, 1st Floor, Vivek Vihar Central Circle – 3 Delhi New Delhi PAN – AAACM 6572 A ITA No. 3661/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 3662/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. Mahagun India Pvt Ltd B-66, 1st Floor, Vivek Vihar Central Circle – 3 New Delhi Delhi PAN – AAACM 6572 A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil…

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2819/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2818/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 2819/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] Mahagun India Pvt Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T B-66, 1st Floor, Vivek Vihar Central Circle – 3 Delhi New Delhi PAN – AAACM 6572 A ITA No. 3661/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 3662/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. Mahagun India Pvt Ltd B-66, 1st Floor, Vivek Vihar Central Circle – 3 New Delhi Delhi PAN – AAACM 6572 A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil…

Mahugun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2818/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2818/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 2819/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] Mahagun India Pvt Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T B-66, 1st Floor, Vivek Vihar Central Circle – 3 Delhi New Delhi PAN – AAACM 6572 A ITA No. 3661/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 3662/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] The A.C.I.T Vs. Mahagun India Pvt Ltd B-66, 1st Floor, Vivek Vihar Central Circle – 3 New Delhi Delhi PAN – AAACM 6572 A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil…