What is CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. authority for?

Income cannot be assessed on purely notional figures or mere suspicion; it must be based on actual evidence and supporting material demonstrating its accrual or receipt by the assessee. Assessments made without such evidence are bad-in-law.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.?

236 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 8), spanning 2012 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 142(1), Section 153A.

CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 8)

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SUDHARSHNA ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…sional rate would not entitle the income-tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser, as profits of the assessee CIT v. A. Raman & Co., (1968)67 ITR 11,17 (SC); CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co.Ltd.., (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. V. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad). Also see, CIT v. Keshavlal Chandulal, (1966) 59 ITR 120 (Guj); Gnanambika Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1965) 58 ITR 795 (Mad); Das & Co.v. CIT, (1962) 45 ITR 369 (Pat); Patiala Biscuit Manufacturers P.Ltd.v. CIT, (1976) 103 ITR 208, 216-7 (Punj); Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel & Co.v.CI…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)

…7 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 17,25,00,000/- and deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be upheld and grounds raised by the revenue may kindly be rejected. 46 It is thus prayed that appeal filed by revenue may kindly be dismissed and cross objection fi…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)

…7 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 17,25,00,000/- and deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be upheld and grounds raised by the revenue may kindly be rejected. 46 It is thus prayed that appeal filed by revenue may kindly be dismissed and cross objection fi…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)

…7 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 17,25,00,000/- and deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be upheld and grounds raised by the revenue may kindly be rejected. 46 It is thus prayed that appeal filed by revenue may kindly be dismissed and cross objection fi…

VESTAS WIND TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCI, CO. RANGE-III, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Srinivasan, CIT for Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 92B

…neither accrued to nor was received by the assessee, it cannot be brought to tax under the Act. In support of his arguments, the reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd – [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC), where this proposition was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further submitted the pricing adopted by the assessee is based on a commercial rationale and established trade practices and the Revenue has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has received any consideration from the subsidiary companies beyond the…

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sauravh Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…factual error, perversity, or legal infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). A vague allegation that the appellate authority did not “properly appreciate” evidence is insufficient in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC), para 11 held that general and vague grounds of appeal which do not specify the error in the order under challenge are not maintainable. Similarly, in CIT v. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC), para 16, the Court observed that unless a finding of fact is shown to be perverse or unsupported by material, it cannot be interfered with.…

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: 1. 37 ITR 151 Omar Salay Mohammad Sait Vs. CIT 2. 26 ITR 736 Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT 3. 26 ITR 775 Dhakeshwari Cotton MillsLtd. Vs. CIT 4. 37 ITR 288 Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 5. 91 ITR 8 CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. It is further submitted that the expenditure being incurred in the day to day business activity and is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business for which the AO cannot walk into the shoe of the businessman to verify the necessity or the business expediency. In this regard further reliance is place…

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

ITA 1885/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 263Section 68

…not take place the evidence\n1. DCIT v. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012\ndt.20/8/2014\n2. K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC);\n3. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC);\n4. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.', (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC);\n5. Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT', (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC\nIncome assessed without evidence is bad-in-law.\nIncome assessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified.\n1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.)\n2. VINOD SOLANKI VS. UOI (233) ELT 157 (S.C.)\n3. CIT V. KASHIRAM TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD [2006]284 ITR 61 (GUJ)-\n4. SARASW…

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

…Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012 dt.20/8/2014 29 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. 2. K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); 3. CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); 4. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.', (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); 5. Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT', (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Income assessed without evidence is bad-in-law. Income assessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified. 1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.) 2. VINOD SOLANKI VS. UOI (233) ELT 157 (S.C.) 3. CIT V. KASHIRAM TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD [2006]284 ITR 61 (GUJ)- 4. SARASWATHI…

AMIT KUMAR SEN,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

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

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ng Officer added cash deposits during demonetization as undisclosed income without establishing the source of the cash or its link to unreported sales. The addition, therefore, lacks the necessary evidentiary basis. 4. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC): • The Ld. Assessing Officer cannot act merely on suspicions and must base assessments on objective facts and evidence. The arbitrary assumption that a difference in stock must equate to undisclosed sales is speculative. Without proper inquiry or verification, such additions are unsustainable under the law. 5. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CI…

RAMESH RAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(5), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…of such additions. In the following cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had pronounced ratios to the same effect: (i) K.P. Varghese v, ITO [1981| 131 ITR 5971 (SC); (ii) CIT v. A. Roman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973]91 ITR 8 (SC): (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959| 37 ITR 271 (SC).99. Apart from these Supreme Court cases, we also wish to cite the following decisions from Hon'ble Appellate Tribunals. :- 4 -: Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Add. CIT (TAT Delhi) 1TA No. 2428/DEI/2014 - Date of Judgement/Order: 11/09/2020 - No addition can be made merely on the basis of…