Chuharmal v. CIT

172 ITR 250Supreme Court of India1988#225 most cited

What is Chuharmal v. CIT authority for?

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

340

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chuharmal v. CIT · Section 69A · 172 ITR 250 · 3 SCC 588 · 'income' wide meaning · unexplained investments · deemed income · unexplained money · source of investment · gain

Also reported as

3 SCC 588

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 250Section 148Section 147Section 143(2)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 110section 153(a)section 132(4a)section 65bsection 65survey under section 133aviolation of natural justicepanchnamasection 271asection 292cdumb documentssection 250(4)

Judgments citing Chuharmal v. CIT

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1133/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e payments made to the sub- contractors and the amounts debited to the P&L account. A statement to this effect is submitted as an annexure. 24. The decisions relied upon by the CIT (A) are not relevant to the facts of the cases. They are listed hereunder: (1) 172 ITR 250 - Chuharmal Vs. CIT - Supreme court of India. The said case has no application to the facts of the assesse’s case. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the searching party found foreign made wrist watches, the source for which was not explained. The value was offered by the assessee. In such circumstances the admission made can’t…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1132/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e payments made to the sub- contractors and the amounts debited to the P&L account. A statement to this effect is submitted as an annexure. 24. The decisions relied upon by the CIT (A) are not relevant to the facts of the cases. They are listed hereunder: (1) 172 ITR 250 - Chuharmal Vs. CIT - Supreme court of India. The said case has no application to the facts of the assesse’s case. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the searching party found foreign made wrist watches, the source for which was not explained. The value was offered by the assessee. In such circumstances the admission made can’t…

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITR 540 . (2) Sumati Dayal v.CIT 214 ITR 801 (3) Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). (4) Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., 63 ITR 609 (SC) (5) McDowell & Co. 154 ITR 148 (SC) (6) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (7) Chuharmal vs. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250/ 38 Taxman 190 (8) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (9) Nikunj Eximp In ITA no. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); (10) Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177 (Bom) (11) Rajeev G. Kalathil in ITA no. 6727/Mum/2012 and CO no. 06/Mum/2014 (12) Nikunj Eximp (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 20 (Bom),. (13) Killick Nixon Ltd., vs DCIT (2012) 20 Taxmann…

Bonifacio D'Souza, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4819/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vi)

…ous purpose. Section 50C makes it obligatory on the part of the AO to treat the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority as the deemed sale consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) pointed out to the following guidelines in CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), which reads as under : 12 Shri Bonifacio D’souza “Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before a court or tribunal. Therefore, the courts and tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by app…

Sri Udit Kumar Dugar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…1) 82 ITR 540 (SC), iii) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), iv) Das & sons Vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 (Delhi), v) Smt. Phoolwati Devi 314 ITR (AT) 1 (Del.), vi) CIT Vs. N R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. dated 22.11.2013(Del.), vii) Chuhar Mal Vs. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, viii) M/s. Mont Blane Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. , ITA No. 614/Bom/1987, ix) Wi Chadha Vs. CIT (IT) in ITA No. 3088 & 3107/Del/2005 x) Usha Chandresh Shah Vs. ITO, ITAT Mumbai dated 26.08.2014 for AY 2006-07 xi) Somnath Maini Vs. ITO (226 100 TTJ 917, xii) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. Pr. CIT dated 10.04.2017 (Bom.) And therefore does not…

Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

ITA 1255/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the investigation report. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding prindple, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble S…

Navin Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

ITA 1254/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the investigation report. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding prindple, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble S…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Chhaya Gems, Mumbai

ITA 2552/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…position that if no evidence is given by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. In the instant case, the appellant has miserably failed to lead the evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 / 38 Taxman 190 highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 I…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…e the addition is based on estimates. Assessment on the basis of estimates is a well-accepted and established mode of determination of income where books of accounts are rejected. Levy of penalty on cases of estimates have been upheld ( refer Chuharmal vs CIT 172 ITR 250 (SC), Addl. CIT vs Chandrakantha and another 205 ITR 607 (MP), CIT vs Md. Warasat Hussain 171 ITR 405 (Patna), A.M. Shah & Co. vs CIT 238 ITR 415 (Guj), CIT vs Krishnawamy and Sons 210 ITR 157 (Mad). Levy of penalty will depend on the facts of the case. Here, profits have been suppressed by showing sale of milk in cash in place of sale of milk pr…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…e the addition is based on estimates. Assessment on the basis of estimates is a well-accepted and established mode of determination of income where books of accounts are rejected. Levy of penalty on cases of estimates have been upheld ( refer Chuharmal vs CIT 172 ITR 250 (SC), Addl. CIT vs Chandrakantha and another 205 ITR 607 (MP), CIT vs Md. Warasat Hussain 171 ITR 405 (Patna), A.M. Shah & Co. vs CIT 238 ITR 415 (Guj), CIT vs Krishnawamy and Sons 210 ITR 157 (Mad). Levy of penalty will depend on the facts of the case. Here, profits have been suppressed by showing sale of milk in cash in place of sale of milk pr…

Shri Aditya Chindalia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the investigation report. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble…

Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the investigation report. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble…

M/S Sant Baba Bhag Singh Memorial Charitable Society, Jalandhar vs. D.C.I.T, Circle - 1 (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 432/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…flexibility for the levy and collection of tax. Two, the money, though ascribed to one, is held by another, so that it is the latter, being in possession thereof, who is better placed to pay tax thereon. These sections, as explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1989] 172 ITR 250 (SC), embody the principles of common law jurisprudence enshrined in the Evidence Act, i.e., if a person is found in possession of something, the onus to prove that he is not the owner thereof is on him. The relevant sections falling under Chapter VI of the Act under subhead ‘Aggregation’ of income’, provide for deeming the same, in the face of u…

Baldev Singh S/O Gajjan Singh, Tarn Taran vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tarn Taran

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 178/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 178/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. T. S. Aurora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 110Section 143(3)Section 69A

…in the assessee’s bank account during the year, for which he is required to furnish a satisfactory explanation with regard to the nature and source thereof, lest the same be regarded as his income for the relevant year. As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), the expression ‘income’ in section 69A of the Act had a wide meaning which meant anything which came in or a resulted in gain. Further, sections 69 and others are 4 Baldev Singh v. ITO based section 110 of the Evidence Act, which embodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence, viz., where a person was found in possession of any…

Confident Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2021/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2013-14 Confident Investment Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Consultants Pvt. Ltd. C/O Ward-6(1), Aayakar V/S. Subash Agarwal & Bhawan, P-7, Associates Siddha Chowringhee Gibson,1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Square, Kolkata-69 Floor, Suite-13, Kolkata- 700069 [Pan No.Aadcc 3385 L]

Section 143(3)

…doubt has no applicability In determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, It Is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the Investigation report. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be Ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AD Is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble…

Shri Udit Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It)-2(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 1839/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

Section 143(3)Section 68

…Agarwal Vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), Kol. Page 12 determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent Is not the real as evidence from the Investigation report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be Ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble…

M/S. Simbhaoli Sugars Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5572/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…“relates to”. But the Legislature, in its wisdom, has given effect to this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015. Therefore, the same cannot be applied to the assessment years under consideration. 49. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 has held that possession is proof of ownership and the seized documents were found from the possession of Shri R.K. Miglani. 50. As mentioned elsewhere, none of the documents referred to by the Assessing Officer belong to the captioned assessees nor it has been identified that which documents belong to which captioned assessees. In our considere…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Simbhaoli Sugars, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3001/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…“relates to”. But the Legislature, in its wisdom, has given effect to this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015. Therefore, the same cannot be applied to the assessment years under consideration. 49. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 has held that possession is proof of ownership and the seized documents were found from the possession of Shri R.K. Miglani. 50. As mentioned elsewhere, none of the documents referred to by the Assessing Officer belong to the captioned assessees nor it has been identified that which documents belong to which captioned assessees. In our considere…

M/S. U.P. Distillery Association, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3211/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…“relates to”. But the Legislature, in its wisdom, has given effect to this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015. Therefore, the same cannot be applied to the assessment years under consideration. 49. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 has held that possession is proof of ownership and the seized documents were found from the possession of Shri R.K. Miglani. 50. As mentioned elsewhere, none of the documents referred to by the Assessing Officer belong to the captioned assessees nor it has been identified that which documents belong to which captioned assessees. In our considere…

M/S. U.P. Distillery Association, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3210/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…“relates to”. But the Legislature, in its wisdom, has given effect to this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015. Therefore, the same cannot be applied to the assessment years under consideration. 49. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 has held that possession is proof of ownership and the seized documents were found from the possession of Shri R.K. Miglani. 50. As mentioned elsewhere, none of the documents referred to by the Assessing Officer belong to the captioned assessees nor it has been identified that which documents belong to which captioned assessees. In our considere…