How many judgments cite CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd.?

43 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (230 ITR 580), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 69C, Section 133(6), Section 10(38), Section 131.

CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd.

230 ITR 580Supreme Court of India1998#2706 most cited

What is CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. authority for?

Where an assessee provides a prima facie probable explanation for a cash credit or unexplained entry, the onus shifts to the revenue to disprove it, and the assessee’s explanation cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Additionally, rejection of books of account under section 145(3) is not an absolute prerequisite for making additions under section 68.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. · 230 ITR 580 · Section 68 · Section 145(3) · onus of proof · unexplained cash credit · assessee's explanation · shifting of onus · rejection of books · prima facie probable explanation · mere surmises · disprove explanation

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 69C Section 133(6)Section 10(38)Section 131 Section 133A Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)(d)onus of proof paper company audi alteram partem retracted statement creditworthiness of the creditor admission of additional evidence addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 section 251 share application money accommodation entry

Judgments citing CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd.

Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the primary onus which lay upon it. The identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction have been proved by the assessee. In CIT vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the explanation offered by the assessee as to the nature and source of credit is prima facie credible, it cannot be rejected on mere surmises. We, therefore, delete the impugned addition of Rs. 1,83,00,000/-. Ground No. 6 and its sub-grounds are decided in favour of the assessee. 11. Ground No. 7…

M/S. Exim India Oil Company Ltd, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 70/CTK/2008[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jun 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 1998-99 M/S. Exim India Oil Company M/S. Exim India Oil Company Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At:N.H-5, Tiberwal Nagar, 5, Tiberwal Nagar, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaace 3929 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Tiberwal Tiberwal, Md Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/6/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 8 /6 6/2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.K. TiberwalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 1998-99 M/s. Exim India Oil Company M/s. Exim India Oil Company Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At:N.H-5, Tiberwal Nagar, 5, Tiberwal Nagar, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AAACE 3929 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…s count. Reference in this regard can be made the decisions in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 ITA NO.1722/Del/2011 (SC) and CIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj.). It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima-facie the inference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Further, it was held in Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) that since the satisfaction of the A…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma

Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…im of the Assessee by establishing that the evidence filed by the assessee was false and by bringing new material on record and failure to do so would vitiate the addition made on this count. g. It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima-facie the inference on facts is that the assessee’s explanation is probable, dthe onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee’s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Other similar judiciary rulling are as under: - • Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) • CIT v.…

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…is a apparent is real: The law settled long back that what is apparent is real unless contrary is proved and it is for the person to prove, who says that what is apparent is not real. Kindly refer Daulat Ram Rawat Mal 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT v/s Bedi & Co. P Ltd 230 ITR 580 (SC) whatsoever in support of his decision that what is apparent is not real. 8. However the ld. AO and CIT(A) have blindly ignored these very vital facts of the case and proceeded on their own guess work, assumption, presumption and suspicion and it is the settled legal position that no addition can be the basis of suspicion, assumptions’ and pr…

Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…m of the Assessee by establishing that the evidence filed by the assessee was false and by bringing new material on record and failure to do so would vitiate the addition made on this count. g. It was also held in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima-facie the inference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee1 s explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Other similar judiciary ruling are as under :- • Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) • CIT v. O…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…by establishing that the evidence filed by the assessee was false and by bringing new material on record and failure to do so would vitiate the addition made on this count ii. It was also held by the Apex court in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima- facie the inference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere surmises. Other similar judiciary ruling are as under:- • Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 900 (Gau.) • CIT v.…

Shri Narendra Tripathi, Bhopal vs. The DCIT-Central-1, Bhopal

In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 300/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT

Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…recorded in the books of account, the onus, rather the burden, is on the department to prove such allegation, as has been held in, inter alia, CIT v. Daulat Mal Rawat Mal, 87 ITR 349 (SC), K.P. Verghese v. ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC) and CIT v. Bedi & Co. (P) Ltd., 230 ITR 580 (SC). No corroborative evidence that on money payment was done for procuring the land. It was further stated in the case of CIT v/s Dinesh Jain HUF (supra) that “A "finding" obviously should rest on evidence”. “Section 69B does not permit an inference to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the transaction that the purchaser of the proper…

Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

…who alleges that what is apparent is not real. The ld. A/R referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (Central) vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC), followed in 7 Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota. case of CIT vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 230 ITR 580 (SC). In the present case, what was apparent was that both the parties have denied to accept /paid loan. Shri DP Sehgal denied that he could not arrange fund for the assessee Shri Ram Kishan Verma. Similarly, Shri Ram Kishan Verma denied that he never received cash loan from Shri D.P. Sehgal. If, such an apparent state of affair, was alleged…

Shambhu Kumar Agarwal, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2019AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 68Section 69A

…eal is on the person who alleges so and this burden must be discharged by strict legal proof and not on conjectures and surmises. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ld. 230 ITR 580 as well as in case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349. The assessee has proved the real nature of the entry recorded in the seized paper. Since it has been duly proved beyond any doubt with documentary evidence, therefore the test of human probability is not applicable in the case of the assessee as it is a case of misconceived interpre…

Ritu Kamal Singhal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3017/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)

…y establishing that the evidence filed by the assessee was false and by bringing new material on record and failure to do so would vitiate the addition made on this count. ii. It was also held by the Apex court in the case of CIT v. Bedi & Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) that where prima-facie the inference on facts is that the assessee's explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue to disprove it and the assessee's explanation in such case cannot be rejected on mere under :- • Khandelwal Constructions v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 90O (Gau.) • CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd, 158 ITR 78 (SC) • CI…

Bhopal Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 656/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 251Section 45Section 48(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 656/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2008-09 cuke Bhopal Singh Shekhawat, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 6, Bhartendu Nagar, Ward-1(4), Khatipura, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOWPS 1925 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : S…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hamilton & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 36/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Section 133(6)Section 68

…interest free loan received from M/s Excel Infotech Ltd is not prejudicial to the interest of the appellant- company or its shareholders. The Ld. A/R has also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Bedi & Co Pvt Ltd [1998] 230 ITR 580(SC). He has further clarified that the appellant-company was able to-make more profits during the year due to availability of interest-free loans. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the AO has treated the loan of Rs.1,40,00,000/- from M/s Excel Infotech Ltd as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 on the basis of conjecture and…

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

…is that apparent is the real. The onus to prove contrary is on the Department. The authorities on this preposition are CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawafmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT vs. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC), CIT vs. Bedi and Company Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) and several others of the Hon’ble High Courts. Nothing has been brought on record by the Assessing Authority to show that the apparent is not real. Being so, the apparent shall prevail. 4. The support from the decisions of the apex court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 could be drawn…

Shri Johri Lal Sodhani, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1046/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…t burden to prove that what is apparent is not real is on the person who alleges so and this burden must be discharged by strict legal proof and not on conjectures and surmises. For this reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd 230 ITR 580 (SC) It was held that the burden of showing that the apparent state of affairs was not the real one lay heavily on the department. CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) The fact that an assessee was unable to satisfy the authorities as to the source from which the depositor derived money cannot be used against 11 Shri Johari Lal Sodhani…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. Delhi Vocational School Society, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue on solitary ground is dismissed

ITA 1151/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito(Exemptions), Vs. Delhi Vocational School Trust Ward-Iii, Aayakar Bhawan, Society, Laxmu Nagar, Distt. Centre, C/O. Summer Fields School, New Delhi Kailash Colony, New Delhi Pan:Aabcs4104H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 140Section 2Section 60Section 69B

…ion through positive evidence is upon the Revenue. The Tribunal had relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as CIT v. Daulat Mal Rawat Mal [1973] 87 ITR 349, K.P. Verghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 (SC) and CIT v. Bedi & Co. [1998] 230 ITR 580/97 Taxman 43 (SC). The entirety of the circumstances, i.e., the examination of the assessee's representations, the report of the DVO etc. were considered and discussed by the Tribunal in the operative part of its reasoning at paragraph 6-8. The relevant discussion is extracted below: — "7. Now, as per Section 69B of the Act, the requirements whi…

Data Infosys Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

In the result, revenue’s ground no

ITA 58/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A.Verma (Addl. CIT)

Section 10ASection 35D

…evidence in brought on record that even after such debit note the market is lower. Hence, the allegation of AO is without any basis. For this reliance is placed on the following cases:- M/s Data Infosys Ltd. vs.DCIT(Hqrs.), Alwar CIT Vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 230 ITR 580 (SC): It was held that the burden of showing that the apparent state of affairs was not the real one was very heavy on the department. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC): The fact that an assessee was unable to satisfy the authorities as to the source from which the depositor derived money cannot be used against assessee. The onus of proving t…