What is CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. authority for?

The onus of proving necessary facts to claim a deduction under Section 37(1) rests on the assessee, and if the assessee fails to establish these facts, the claim for deduction is not admissible.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.?

164 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 153A, Section 148, Section 263, Section 132.

CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191)

GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 554/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 57

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Gopal Muwel, ITO बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (PAN: CAAPM6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Lucky Singhal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961, [herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity]. The A…

NAVGRAHAA JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4786/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnavgrahaa Jewels Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner 7(1)(1), Unit No.341 & 342, Pragati Mumbai Industrial Esrate, N. M. Joshi Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai-400011 Pan: Aaecn0220G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 11.11.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR DR

Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14bSection 250Section 69C

…er is detailed, based on investigation findings, statements, and the Appellant's failure to rebut evidence. It complies with natural justice, with multiple notices under Sections 142(1) and 148A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC) held that general grounds without substance deserve dismissal. IV. PRAYER 22. In view of the above, the Revenue prays that:  The application for condonation of delay be rejected, and the appeal be dismissed as time-barred.  Alternatively, on merits, all grounds be dismissed, and the orders of the AO and CIT(A) be upheld.  Costs be awarded…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2172/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

…ee during the assessment proceedings. The ld. DR submitted that under such circumstances, the ld. AO has not accepted the contentions of assessee even in the remand report, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the primary burden of proof lies on the assessee to substantiate the claim of deduction and facts in their tax return. The ld. DR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd. the file of ld. AO for verification of genuineness of expenditure as the necessary evidenc…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

…ee during the assessment proceedings. The ld. DR submitted that under such circumstances, the ld. AO has not accepted the contentions of assessee even in the remand report, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the primary burden of proof lies on the assessee to substantiate the claim of deduction and facts in their tax return. The ld. DR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd. the file of ld. AO for verification of genuineness of expenditure as the necessary evidenc…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

…ee during the assessment proceedings. The ld. DR submitted that under such circumstances, the ld. AO has not accepted the contentions of assessee even in the remand report, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the primary burden of proof lies on the assessee to substantiate the claim of deduction and facts in their tax return. The ld. DR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd. the file of ld. AO for verification of genuineness of expenditure as the necessary evidenc…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

…ee during the assessment proceedings. The ld. DR submitted that under such circumstances, the ld. AO has not accepted the contentions of assessee even in the remand report, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the primary burden of proof lies on the assessee to substantiate the claim of deduction and facts in their tax return. The ld. DR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd. the file of ld. AO for verification of genuineness of expenditure as the necessary evidenc…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2117/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)

…ee during the assessment proceedings. The ld. DR submitted that under such circumstances, the ld. AO has not accepted the contentions of assessee even in the remand report, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the primary burden of proof lies on the assessee to substantiate the claim of deduction and facts in their tax return. The ld. DR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd. the file of ld. AO for verification of genuineness of expenditure as the necessary evidenc…

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1311/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 37(1)

…of the Act by the AO for the reason of non-verifiability. The disallowance is not arbitrary but a reasonable estimate in absence of records. The AO rightly exercised judgment based on the facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [(1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC)] has held that the onus to prove expenditure lies with the assessee. Where no evidence is furnished, disallowance is permissible. Similarly, in CIT v. McMillan & Co. [(1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC)], it was held that estimation of disallowance is valid where accounts are not reliable. Hence, the rejection of books of account and the disallowance of R…