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

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. Nos: 93 to 99/RPR/2014 C.O. Nos. 12 to 18/RPR/2014 (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dy. Commissioner of V/S Rakesh Saraogi & Sons Income-tax 1(1), Raipur (HUF) C/o. subham Kroti, Main Road Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G) PAN No. AACHR6854D Rakesh Saraogi & Sons V/S (HUF) C/o. subham Kroti, Dy. Commissioner of Main Road Shankar Income-tax 1(1), Raipur Nagar, Raipur (C.G) PAN No. AACHR6854D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of V/S Smt. Babita Saraogi C/o. Income…

Sohanraj Uttamchand, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Dass, CITFor Respondent: 21.12.2017
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

…onclusion cannot be bluntly made on the basis of surmises and conjectures in the case of any assessee when certain other material factors are in favour of the assessee. 8.6 The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor reported in 299 ITR 179 in a somewhat conjectures. The gist of the decision and case is extracted herein below for reference:- “The assessee’s case was reopened on receipt of an intimation from the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation) stating that the long-term capital gain declared by the assessee was false and the transaction was not genuine. In response to a…

DCIT, 1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Smt Vimlesh Kumar Singh, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 21/BIL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Shital Verma, DR
Section 10(38)

…ded in the books of accounts/bank account in the normal course of business, the addition made on the basis of incorrect inferences drawn by the A.O. is not correct. The assessee relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- i) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P&H); ii) ACIT vs. Kamal Kumar S. Agrawal (Indl.) and Ors. (2010) 133 TTJ (Nag) 818 5. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO, wherein the AO observed that the assessment order in this case was framed keeping in 4 view the inquiry conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata regarding phenomenal increase in the pri…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…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. b) Regarding the inquiries which are being discuss in the show cause notice this is to submit that whatever inquired being discuss by ld. AO was not in knowledge of the assessee that what sort of inquiries has been made by the department and what are the outc…

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

….)(2006). The assessee submits that the Tribunal in this case has upheld the contentions of the assessee with relation to purchase and sale of shares through off market transactions. The third decision relied on by the assessee is CIT v. Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179(P&H). In this case, it has been held that there was no material before the AO which could have led to a conclusion that transaction was simplicitor a device to camouflage activities to defraud revenue. The assessee then relied on the decision in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Bibi Rani Bansal, 44 SOT 500 (2011) (Agra) (TM), Acchyalal Shaw vs. ITO 121…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Khalil M Bharwani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 223/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 223/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer-19(3)(2) Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor अपीलाथ"/Appellant Piramal Chambes, Parel Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 बनाम/ Vs. Ms. Khalil M. Bharwani ""यथ"/Respondent Flat No. 9, Noor-E-Rehmat 59-B.J. Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan - Ajjpb7570L अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Respondent By: Shri B.V. Jhaveri सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2015 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal KumarFor Respondent: Shri B.V. Jhaveri
Section 68

…that gains on the sale of shares is genuine. a) Shri B.P.Nandu & Others vs. ACIT Mumbai ITAT 'E' Bench, ITA No. 1714 and 1723 /M/2006 dt.17.i0.2008. b) Pushpa R.Shah & Others vs. ITO (Mumbai), ITA No.2669 & 2670 /M/2006 dt.29.07.2008. c) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H). d) Mukesh R. Marofia vs. Addl. CIT (2006) 6 SOT 247 (Mumbai). e) Kumari Saumya Agarwal vs. lTO 174 Taxmann 60 (Agra). x) The appellant further claimed that the price at which it had sold the shares were duly recorded and reflected on the Calcutta Stock Exchange which is independently proved by price copy of shares dealt on those days on th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

…HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 577 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj) ----Appellant Versus M/s Prestige City Developers P. Ltd., ISF, Kamal Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BL…