CIT v. Anupam Kapoor

299 ITR 179High Court2008#1299 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.

87

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 1961Section 68Section 147Section 69ASection 115BBESection 131Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)retracted statementbogus long term capital gainsection 34on-moneypenny stocksection 10(38)section 30profits and gains of business or professionentry operatoraddition u/s 68loose papers

Judgments citing CIT v. Anupam Kapoor

DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Kunireddi Srinivas, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

ITA 313/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Kunireddi Srinivas, Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Amapk 0271H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 148

…rmise without bringing any corroborative evidence on record. Reliance is placed on following decisions. a) Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of umarcharan Shaw & Bros Vs CIT (37ITR 271). b) Hon'ble Punjab-Haryan High Court in the case of CIT vs Anupam Kapoor (299 ITR 179) c) Hon'ble ITAT-Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs, Shailesh S. Shah (63ITD 53 Mum) d) Hon'b'e IT AT _ Hyderabad in the case of L Girdhari Lal & Co. vs. ITO(ITA No.516/Hyd/2014) The information on record is carefully considered. Both the companies namely M/s. SPR publications Pvt Ltd and SPR Infrastructure India Ltd have confirmed before the Assessin…

The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Storages Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2302/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2302/Ahd/2016 Asstt.Year 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2302/Ahd/2016 Asstt.Year 2007-08 ITO, Ward-2(1)(1) Vs. M/s.Gujarat Storages P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. 605, Samedh Complex Nr.Associated Petroleum C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. PAN : AABCG 7431 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/08/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/08/2021 आदेश/O…

DCIT - CC - 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Balkrishan Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3967/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahendra B Mittal Income Tax, A-403, Meghdoot Apartment Central Circle 8 (1) Raheja Township, Malad(E) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aebpm1654H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Shri Mahendra B Mittal Income Tax, A-403, Meghdoot Apartment Central Circle 8 (1) Raheja Township, Malad(E) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 097 PAN/GIR No. AEBPM1654H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Sajit V. Nair Assessee by Shri Madhur Agrawal Date of Hearing 20/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement 08/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against the impugned order dated 28/03/2019, passed by the CIT(…

M/S Gulmohar Developers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 867/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. PoddarFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

…ace of evidence. In this case the vouchers of sale cannot be rejected on the basis of suspicion and doubt. For this purpose, reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements 1. Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 3. CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 4. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) 5. State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) 6. J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) Further more, I also observed that in the immediately preceding year the scrutiny assessment was framed and agricultural income so disclosed by…

M/S Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.1614/Kol/2019 M/s. Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी पी. एम.जगताप, उपा"य" एवं "ी ए.ट". वक","या"यक सद"य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1614/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-10(4), (PAN: AAECP6165G) Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 14.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2019 For the Appellant Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR ORDER…

Surinder Kumar & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 890/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68Section 68oSection 69Section 69A

…ber Industries v. CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) vi) CIT vs. Sunita Dhada in SLP(C) Diary No.9432/2018 dated 28.03.2018. vii) ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co., (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC). viii) PCIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. (Del) (ix) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (x) CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H) (xi) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.) 9 I.T.A. No.890/DEL/2012 10. He further submitted that the approval given u/s.151 by Addl. CIT is also mechanical and casual. On merits, he submitted that assessee has received a gift through banking transactions and there is no rec…

M/S Gullu Mal Gulanchi Lal Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)

…hsildar. But he did not accept the contention of the assessee. This shows the variation on working of agricultural income on estimate basis. The ld. A/R relied upon the following decisions :- Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 4 M/s. Gullu Mal Gulachi Lal Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that it is well known fact that the agricul…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 289/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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, 90 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. If the department considers it as income of the assessee, it is burden on the department to prove the figures appearing on the paper found in the search represents undisclosed in…

Nitin Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 128/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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, 90 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. If the department considers it as income of the assessee, it is burden on the department to prove the figures appearing on the paper found in the search represents undisclosed in…

M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 127/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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, 90 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. If the department considers it as income of the assessee, it is burden on the department to prove the figures appearing on the paper found in the search represents undisclosed in…

Rohit Jalan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2205/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 Rohit Jalan, AY- 2013-14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, “SMC” AT KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rohit Jalan Vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AEZPJ1210L) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 20.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2019 For the Appellant Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, ACIT, Sr. DR ORDER This is an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 10, Kolkata dated 19.09.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Though the as…

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

…1 Vivek Jhunjhunwala, AY:2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C(SMC)” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C(SMC)” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य ) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 2333/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Vivek Jhunjhunwala Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-63(4), Kolkata (PAN: AGTPJ1833H) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 18.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 For the Appellant Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.…

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

…1 Vasudha Jain, AY:2015-16 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A(SMC)” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A(SMC)” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य ) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1018/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasudha Jain Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-36(4), Kolkata (PAN: AFTPA5188H) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 18.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 15.02.2019 For the Appellant Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR For the Respondent Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-10, Kolkata dated…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…Kalanjoy Singh vs. State of Manipur i) 109 ITR 324 (Cal) CIT vs. Chrestin Vies Industries Ltd. ii) 96 ITR 646 (ker) CIT vs. Ms. Dris S. Luiz iii) iv) 108 TTJ 575 (Nag) S. K. Jain vs. JCIT 1.12 Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) CIT vs. Anupam Kapuur (pages 294-296 of JPB) 43 DTR 149 (Agr) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT (pages309-326 of JPB) ii) 1.13 Further, it is submitted that, in the instant case, transaction of sale of shares have been confirmed by all the seven parties and in such circumstances no addition under section 68 of the Act can be made in the hands of…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…Kalanjoy Singh vs. State of Manipur i) 109 ITR 324 (Cal) CIT vs. Chrestin Vies Industries Ltd. ii) 96 ITR 646 (ker) CIT vs. Ms. Dris S. Luiz iii) iv) 108 TTJ 575 (Nag) S. K. Jain vs. JCIT 1.12 Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) CIT vs. Anupam Kapuur (pages 294-296 of JPB) 43 DTR 149 (Agr) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT (pages309-326 of JPB) ii) 1.13 Further, it is submitted that, in the instant case, transaction of sale of shares have been confirmed by all the seven parties and in such circumstances no addition under section 68 of the Act can be made in the hands of…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…Kalanjoy Singh vs. State of Manipur i) 109 ITR 324 (Cal) CIT vs. Chrestin Vies Industries Ltd. ii) 96 ITR 646 (ker) CIT vs. Ms. Dris S. Luiz iii) iv) 108 TTJ 575 (Nag) S. K. Jain vs. JCIT 1.12 Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) CIT vs. Anupam Kapuur (pages 294-296 of JPB) 43 DTR 149 (Agr) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT (pages309-326 of JPB) ii) 1.13 Further, it is submitted that, in the instant case, transaction of sale of shares have been confirmed by all the seven parties and in such circumstances no addition under section 68 of the Act can be made in the hands of…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…of the impugned order) and considering the decision in the case of UmaCharan Shaw & Brothers vs CIT 37 ITR 271 (Supreme Court), CIT vs K. Mahim Udma 22 ITR 133(Kerala), Dhankeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 (Supreme Court), CIT vs Anumpam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P & H), ACIT vs Metro Construction Co. (2013) 36 CCH 249 (Mum.), Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT (2012) 148 TTJ 719 (JP) found that the alleged bogus purchases transactions and the consequent addition was made in the hands of the firm i.e. M/s Skylark 213 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shet…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…of the impugned order) and considering the decision in the case of UmaCharan Shaw & Brothers vs CIT 37 ITR 271 (Supreme Court), CIT vs K. Mahim Udma 22 ITR 133(Kerala), Dhankeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 (Supreme Court), CIT vs Anumpam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P & H), ACIT vs Metro Construction Co. (2013) 36 CCH 249 (Mum.), Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT (2012) 148 TTJ 719 (JP) found that the alleged bogus purchases transactions and the consequent addition was made in the hands of the firm i.e. M/s Skylark 213 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shet…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…of the impugned order) and considering the decision in the case of UmaCharan Shaw & Brothers vs CIT 37 ITR 271 (Supreme Court), CIT vs K. Mahim Udma 22 ITR 133(Kerala), Dhankeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 (Supreme Court), CIT vs Anumpam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P & H), ACIT vs Metro Construction Co. (2013) 36 CCH 249 (Mum.), Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT (2012) 148 TTJ 719 (JP) found that the alleged bogus purchases transactions and the consequent addition was made in the hands of the firm i.e. M/s Skylark 213 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shet…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…r (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H). Besides there was no adverse material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to support a conviction of the gift not being genuine. Absent such material the conclusion was impermissible. Kindly refer CIT vs. Anupak Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 14. The digesting of the message from the Investigation Wing without verification and without application of mind being in the nature of a borrowed satisfaction has been held to be invalid in law. This is stated on the authority of Delhi High Court in SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285. Similar observations of the Gujarat High Court…