C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT

34 ITR 501High Court1958#4679 most cited

What is C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT authority for?

Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof in tax assessments. A case cannot be decided solely on suspicion without concrete evidence.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT · suspicion vs proof · legal evidence · tax assessment · burden of proof · income tax · Tribunal decision · assessment proceedings · adverse inference · absence of evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 142(3)section 106section 115beproximate nexuspreponderance of probabilitythird party informationsection 114section 91legal representativelive linkviolation of natural justicecreditworthiness of the creditor

Judgments citing C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT

Sri Vivek Jhunjhunwala, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 63(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2333/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 68

…law that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for adjudication.— C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), M.O. Thomakutty vs. CIT (.1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker)) and Mukand Singh vs. Sales Tax Tribunal (1998) 107 STC 300 (Punjab) relied on; Umacharan Shaw &Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Applied; Jaspal Singh vs. CIT (2006) 205 CTR (P & H) 624 distinguished” 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 501 & 502/Ahd/2016 had the occasion to consider a similar issue which was wherein the…

Vasudha Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1018/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 68

…law that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for adjudication.— C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), M.O. Thomakutty vs. CIT (.1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker)) and Mukand Singh vs. Sales Tax Tribunal (1998) 107 STC 300 (Punjab) relied on; Umacharan Shaw &Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Applied; Jaspal Singh vs. CIT (2006) 205 CTR (P & H) 624 distinguished” 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 501 & 502/Ahd/2016 had the occasion to consider a similar issue which was wherein the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…....” 11. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " M/s SMC Share Brokers Limited vs DCIT Central Circle - 3 in ITA No. 250/Del/2005 " CIT vs. Biju Patnaik 190 ITR 396 (Orissa) " P.S Abdul Majee vs. ACIT & STO 209 ITR 821 " M.O. Thomakutty vs. CIT 34 ITR 501 " Vasanti Lal & Co. vs. CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC) " State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shadull AIR 19971627 (SC) " Kishen Chart Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 " Sona Electric Co. vs. CIT 152 ITR 507(Del) " Narayan Chandra Baidya vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 207 " VOI vs. T.R. Verma (SC) (1959) 882 " Seth Gurumukh Singh vs. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393 " CIT vs. Eastern Commerci…

The Dy. CIT-1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Rakesh Saraogi & Soni (HUF), Raipur (Cg)

ITA 93/BIL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

Section 143(3)

…law that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for adjudication.— C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), M.O. Thomakutty vs. CIT (.1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker)) and ITA Nos. 93 to 99/RPR/2014 & 12 C.O. Nos. 12 to 18/RPR/2014 . A.Y. 2004-05 Mukand Singh vs. Sales Tax Tribunal (1998) 107 STC 300 (Punjab) relied on; Umacharan Shaw &Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Applied; Jaspal Singh vs. CIT (2006) 205 CTR (P & H) 624 distinguished” 23. The Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 501 & 502…

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

…x 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 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Koyammankutty v ITO (1965) 58 ITR 871 (Ker); Menon (TCN) v ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (Ker.). e) Apart from the confirmation of the party the assessee has submitted following documents in support of genuineness of loan taken from this party: - i) Confirmation of the party. 11 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaip…