How many judgments cite CIT v. Anupam Kapoor?

87 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Anupam Kapoor (299 ITR 179), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Anupam Kapoor come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 68, Section 147, Section 69A, Section 115BBE.

CIT v. Anupam Kapoor

299 ITR 179High Court2008#1313 most cited

What is CIT v. Anupam Kapoor authority for?

Strong suspicion, no matter how compelling, cannot take the place of concrete evidence when making tax assessments, and additions to income cannot be sustained solely on that basis.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Anupam Kapoor · 299 ITR 179 · suspicion vs evidence · income tax assessment · burden of proof · section 68 · cash credits · bogus long term capital gain · mere suspicion · section 143(3) · section 147

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 68 Section 147 Section 69A Section 115BBE Section 131 Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)retracted statement bogus long term capital gain section 34 on-money penny stock section 10(38)section 30 profits and gains of business or profession entry operator addition u/s 68 loose papers

Judgments citing CIT v. Anupam Kapoor

NARAYAN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Section 10(38)

…ation Wing was only a cause for\nsuspicion and the assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of\nsuspicion and surmises. Reference is invited to the following\njudgements:\nDecision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT\n-Vs-Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179, in which it was held as under:\n\"Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no material before the\nAssessing Officer, which could have led to a conclusion that the\ntransaction was a device to camouflage activities to defraud the\nRevenue. No such presumption could be drawn by the Assessing\nOfficer merely on surmises and conjectures. The Tri…

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…or making any addition on the basis of statement of Shri Rahul Choudhary. Presumption however strong cannot take the place of evidence. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (v) State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) (vi) J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) 5. Books of Accounts are audited u/s 44AB:- It is submitted that the books of accounts of the assessee firm are audited u/s 44AB of the…

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…cion, on guess work, assumption, presumption and conjectures. It is settled position of law that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence Following case laws are quoted in support. a Uma Charan Shaw & Bros 37 ITR 271 b CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 ( P&H) c CIT Vs Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 d Lal chand Bhagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 e State Vs Guljari lal Tondan AIR 1979 (SC) f J A Naidoo Vs State of Maharastra AIR 1979 SC 1537 g Krishnand Vs State of MP AIR 1977 SC 796 h Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 SC 40 I Omar Saha 37 ITR 151 (SC) Further It is submitted that the lear…

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

LAXMIDHAN TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…missioner of Income-tax vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi)/[2017] 249 Taxman 610 (Delhi)/[2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi)[07-07-2017] iv) Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad vs. Anupam Kapoor [2008] 166 Taxman 178 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2008] 299 ITR 179 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2007] 212 CTR 491 (Punjab & Haryana)[01-02-2007] v) Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar vs. Smt. Paramjit Kaur [2008] 168 Taxman 39 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2009] 311 ITR 38 (Punjab & Haryana)[06- 08-2007] vi) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shiv Shakti Flour Mills P. Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 430 (Gauhati)[15-09-2009] vii) Anil Kumar B…

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI.JAGANNATHAN SEKAR, CHENNAI

ITA 1279/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

…ted more on suspicion and doubt than on evidence. It is settled principle of that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (ii) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) (iii)CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambik…

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI vs. S. RAMACHANDRAN, PUDUKKOTTAI

ITA 1278/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Chennai. Opp.Smbm School, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), # 3/29, New No,3/40, Chennai. Muthupattinam, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), # 25, Sambasivam Street, Chennai. T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI vs. S. RAMACHANDRAN, PUDUKOTTAI

ITA 1276/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

Section 132(4)

…idence. It is settled principle of that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 It has been h…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI vs. K. RETHINAM, DINDIGUL

ITA 1275/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…s of suspicion, assumption and presumption. It is settled principle of law that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of evidence. The following cases are quoted in support :- (i) Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (v) State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) (vi J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) From the discussion made above, it may kindly be seen that :- (1) All the creditors are assessed to income and they are borne on the reg…

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.411/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–2(1), Nagpur v/s Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ……………. Respondent 469, Poonam Villa, New Colony Nagpur 440 013 PAN – AATPH2594R Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 21/01/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order date…

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeal of the appellant stands partly allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 1005/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 44

…case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. Vs CIT 37 ITR 271 has held that the surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P &H) also held that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. 3.5 Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra [2004 (8) SCC 614) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard t…

GULLU MAL GULACHI LAL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 858/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

…. In the present case the vouchers of sale cannot be rejected on the basis of suspicion and doubt and in this regard I draw strength from the decisions in the cases mentioned as under:- (i) Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (v) State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) (vi) J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) The Other arguments raised by ld. DR are to the effect that Appellant has not shown comparison with respect to the preceeding year and h…

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 245/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…High Court 8. PCIT vs. Hitesh Gandhi ITA No. 18 of 2017 Punjab & Haryana High Court 9. ITA No. No 385 of 2011 CIT vs. Pooja Agarwal Rajasthan High Court 10. CIT vs. Sudeep Goenka 29 taxmann.com 402 Allahabad high dated 3/1/2013 Court 11. CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 Punjab & Haryana High Court 12. Arunkumar Agarwal HUF 26 taxmann.com 113 Jharkhand High Court 13. 54 taxmann.com; 108 Bombay High CIT vs. Shyam R Pawar 229 TAXMAN 0256 Court 14. Pr. Commissioner of Income 2018 (3) TMI 1084 Gujarat High 27 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA Tax vs. Deepali Mahendra Shah Court 15. Commissioner of Income…

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

ITA 550/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatiya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…which cannot take place of proof. • Dhiraj lal Girdharilal vs. CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC) : The mere existence of suspicion would not tantamount to evidence. Satisfaction should not be based on mere suspicion, conjecture or guess work. • CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) : It is a settled law that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for jurisdiction. 2 It is further submitted that the re-opening in the present case has been proposed in the most mechanical manner based on some random observation merel…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TVS INVESTMENTS LRD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

…nsaction could not be treated as bogus." 14.2 Moreover, when purchases have not been doubted or disputed by the Revenue in this case, the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana Court relied by learned A.R. in the case of CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor reported in (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) is very much relevant. The held portion of this decision is extracted herein below:- "Held, dismissing the appeals, that there was no material before the Assessing Officer which could have led to a conclusion that the transaction was a device to camouflage activities to defraud the Revenue. No such presumption could be drawn by the Assessi…

NAWAL BASUDEO AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4419/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4419/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2014-15) ITO,Ward-24(3)(1), NawalBasudeoAgarwal, Vs. Room.no.415,4 th Floor, 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Piramal chambers, Manish Nagar, Lalbaug, J.P.Road, Andheri (W), Parel, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400012. PAN/GIR No. AABPA1746L (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by Shri.Vimal Punmiya.AR Revenue by Shri.Ashish Kumar.Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 10.05.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADA…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…es. The same therefore deserves to be quashed. It is settled position of law that suspicion and doubt however strong cannot take the place of evidence. Following case laws are quoted in support – a) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros 37 ITR 271 b) CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 ( P&H) 36 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni c) CIT Vs Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 d) Lal chand Bhagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 e) State Vs Guljari lal Tondan AIR 1979 (SC) f) J A Naidoo Vs State of Maharastra AIR 1979 SC 1537 g) Krishnand Vs State of MP AIR 1977 SC 796 h) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mill…

SANJAY BASUDEO AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(1)(1), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed”

ITA 2398/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward - 25(1)(1), 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Kautilya Bhawan, J.P Road, Manishnagar, G- Block,Bkc, Andheri (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa1748E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri.UjjawalkumarChavhanSr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs ITO, Ward - 25(1)(1), 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Kautilya Bhawan, J.P Road, ManishNagar, G- Block,BKC, Andheri (W), Bandra Kurla complex, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. PAN/GIR No. : AABPA1748E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya.AR Revenue by : Shri.UjjawalkumarChavhanSr.DR Date of Hearing 08.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Cen…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf; dlnL; ,o aJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 82/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Kailash Chand Yadav cuke Income Tax Officer, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Vs. Ward-1(1), Jaipur. Sheoshinghpura, Akoda, Phulera, Jaipur-303338. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACXPY 1162 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.L. Podd…

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5