Ashwani Kumar v. ITO

39 ITD 183High Court1991#853 most cited

What is Ashwani Kumar v. ITO authority for?

For figures in a 'dumb document' to be treated as the assessee's income, the revenue must provide necessary evidence to prove that these figures represent income earned by the assessee and that the alleged documents have materialized into transactions.

122

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ashwani Kumar v. ITO · dumb document · revenue evidence · income earned · materialised transactions · corroborative evidence · undisclosed receipts · section 132(4)

Also reported as

250 ITR 327

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 132Section 263Section 69CSection 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharesplace of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)voluntary admissionlegal expensesdumb documentssection 158bbsection 132(4a)section 158b(b)section 269tonus of proof

Judgments citing Ashwani Kumar v. ITO

P.R. Metrani vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Bangalore

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005673-005675 - 2002Supreme Court15 Nov 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 132Section 132(5)Section 139(2)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…ection 132 applies only in relation to the provisional adjudication which is contemplated under Section 132 (5) and the same was not available for framing the regular assessment. Subsequently the High Court of Delhi in Daya Chand Vs. CIT, (2001) 250 ITR 327, has taken a somewhat similar view and has held "that presumption arising under Section 132 (4A) must be held to be applicable only in relation to the provisional adjudication as contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and the presumption cannot be said to have the effect of excluding the application of Section 68." The Kar…

P.R. Metrani vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, Bangalore

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-005673-005675 - 2002Supreme Court15 Nov 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 132Section 132(5)Section 139(2)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…ection 132 applies only in relation to the provisional adjudication which is contemplated under Section 132 (5) and the same was not available for framing the regular assessment. Subsequently the High Court of Delhi in Daya Chand Vs. CIT, (2001) 250 ITR 327, has taken a somewhat similar view and has held "that presumption arising under Section 132 (4A) must be held to be applicable only in relation to the provisional adjudication as contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and the presumption cannot be said to have the effect of excluding the application of Section 68." The Kar…