C.B.Gautam v. UOI (

118 ITR 134High Court1979#14733 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Judgments citing C.B.Gautam v. UOI (

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…justice is an indispensable requirement of a valid assessment order. kindly see,Jagadambika Pratap Narain Singh (Raja) v. CBDT (1975) 100 ITR 698 (SC), Government of India v. Maxim A Lobo (1990) 83 CTR (Mad) 103; CIT v. VimladenBhagwandas Patel (Smt.) (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Gangadharan Pillai (P) v. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC) (1983) Tax LR 2664 (Goa); MallappaKallappaUgare v. Ag ITO (1973) 91 ITR 529 (Mys); State Bank of Patiala v Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh v CIT (1978) 111 IT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Surat vs. Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 373/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.373/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi V Circle-3(1), Room No.112, 1Str Floor, Diam Jewels, 7/4155, Sunder S. Anavil Business Center, Adajan Char Rasta, Sadan, Galemandi, Suthar Faliya, Surat Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxps 9521 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 269USection 50CSection 52

…ld AR for the assessee submits that various benches of Tribunal in following cases held that difference up to 15% estimate needs to be ignored against the declared value.  C.B.Gautam Vs UOI (65 Taxman 440 (SC),  Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel Vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 134 (Guj HC) and  Bimla Singh Vs CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71 (Pat). 9.The ld.AR for the assessee accordingly submits that by taking a broad view, the assessee may be allowed relief. The ld AR for the assessee furnished chart showing percentage of difference in the value shown by the assessee and the value accepted by ld CIT(A). 10.On the other hand, the l…

Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, Surat vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, The Income Tax Officer, Block No.4, Krishna Park Society, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat. Vs Shyam Dham Road, Nan Varachha, Surat – 395006. Pan: Achpb 9761 A Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 56

…e ld AR for the assessee submits that various benches of Tribunal in following cases held that difference up to 15% estimate neds to be ignored against the declared value.  C.B.Gautam Vs UOI (65 Taxman 440 (SC),  Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel Vs CIT [1979] 118 ITR 134 (Guj HC) and  Bimla Singh Vs CIT [2009] 308 ITR 71 (Pat). 9. The ld.AR for the assessee accordingly submits that by taking a broad view, the assessee may be allowed relief. The ld AR for the assessee furnished chart showing percentage of difference in the value shown by the assessee and the value accepted by ld CIT(A). 10. On the other hand, the…

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Sambandam Dorairaj, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 301/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.301/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 54

…es any issue only on the basis of strict evidences produced by both parties. The following case laws support the proposition that strict proof is not necessary for reaching a decision in income tax matters; (i) CIT vs. Smt. Vimalaben Bhagavandhas Patel (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj) (ii) Anraj Narain Dass vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 562 (Punj) (iii) Laxmin Co vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 461 (All) (iv) Devi Dass Madhav Prasad vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 356 (All) 9.1 The Income Tax Officer has discretion to take into account the principle of preponderance of probabilities and the facts of a case has to be appreciated in the light of the abo…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…davits are nothing more than a self-serving document. (xii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd vs Union of India (1981) 51 Comp Cas 210,255 (SCI and Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel 118 ITR 134, 184 (Guj) have observed that aquasi judicial decision rendered or an order made in violation of the audialterampartem rule in null and void and the order impugned in such a case can be struck down as invalid on that score alone." 6.3.10. It has not been disproved by the AO that the suspicious parties in question were, at the time when the purcha…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132(4)Section 68

…ustice is an indispensable requirement of a valid assessment order. kindly see, Jagadambika Pratap Narain Singh (Raja) v. CBDT (1975) 100 ITR 698 (SC), Government of India v. Maxim A Lobo (1990) 83 CTR (Mad) 103; CIT v. Vimladen Bhagwandas Patel (Smt.) (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Gangadharan Pillai (P) v. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC) (1983) Tax LR 2664 (Goa); Mallappa Kallappa Ugare v. Ag ITO (1973) 91 ITR 529 (Mys); State Bank of Patiala v Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh v CIT (1978) 111…