How many judgments cite CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull?

525 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 148.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

87 ITR 349Supreme Court of India1973#122 most cited

What is CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull authority for?

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

525

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull · 87 ITR 349 · Section 68 · Section 69A · onus of proof · burden of proof · apparent is not real · genuineness of transaction · cash credit · unexplained money · suspicion not evidence · sufficiency of evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 148 Section 69C Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statement dumb documents creditworthiness of the creditor bogus long term capital gain section 132(4a)section 292c section 132(4)loose papers addition under section 68 section 10(38)section 127 on-money

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

ITO (E) WARD 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ACHARYA SHRI VIJAY SURENDRA SURISHWARJI JAIN TATWA GYAN SHALA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is partly allowed

ITA 2334/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

…t. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) / [1986] 25 Taxman 80 (SC) has held that where the assessee has furnished basic evidences, the onus shifts to the Department and no addition can be sustained merely on suspicion. Similarly, in CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the onus to prove that a particular receipt is income lies on the Revenue. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 I…

SHRI SANDIP HARKISHAN MARWADI,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 164/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Sandip Harkishan Marwadi Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Cas, Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), 1St Floor, "Sakar", Income Tax Office, Racecourse Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Road, Sadar, Rajkot - 360001. Opp. Rajkumar College, Gujarat Rajkot-360001,(Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm1302R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26 / 03 /2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/ 04 /2026

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…ficer can reopen an assessment provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income. Reasons must have live link with the formation of the belief. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dolatram Ravatmull 87 ITR 349 has held that there should be some direct nexus between the conclusion of the fact arrived at the authority concern and the primary facts upon which that conclusion is based. The use of extraneous and irrelevant material in arriving at that conclusion would vitiate the conclusion of facts and therefore, reopening of assessment is bad in law. 12.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 239/NAG/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…lege that the apparent is not real in a given case, as the one at hand, without bringing on record any tangible material to establish the same. Reference, in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Daulat Ram Rawatmull: 87 ITR 349 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if FD in the names of sons of partners are utilized as security by the Firm, then, the onus of proving that Firm was owner of the FD was on the Revenue. In Jaydayal Poddar v/s Bibi Hazra: AIR 1974 SC 171, Supreme Court held that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparen…

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 220/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…by the assessing officer in the instant case as well. 58. It would be appreciated that it is a well settled legal position that onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the person who made such allegation [refer: CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull: [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)]. In the present case, considering that the said onus was on the assessing officer, the assessing officer did not discharge the same, on the contrary alleged in the order that the assessee failed to discharge the burden. P a g e | 28 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) 59. It is pertinent to note that during the course of assessment proceedin…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S MOHIT ISPAT LTD., KUNDAIM

Appeal of the Revenue is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 9/PAN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Mohit Ispat Limited 339/340, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Goa-403115 Pan: Aaccm8154E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Of The Revenue Instituted U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Order Dt. 04/10/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Sprung From Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(2)

…aw material cost has been accounted for in the regular books of accounts. Thus, the petitioner's contention that only GP should be added to income could not be accepted. 38. We further refer the ratio laid in the case of ‘CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull’ [1973, 87 ITR 349] it has been held that onus of proving what is apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. There should be direct nexus between the conclusions of fact arrived at, or inferred, and the primary facts ITAT-Panaji Page 43 of 44 ACIT Vs M/s Mohit Ispat Limited ITA No. 009/PAN/2020 AY: 2016-17 upon which the conclusion is based. Sinc…

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KALAWATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING P LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly ITA No.: 134/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalawati Investments & Trading P. Ltd. discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove…

THE DAKSHIN DINAJPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,BALURGHAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3,, MALDA

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

ITA 2187/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA Nos. 2187 to 2189/KOL/2025 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15) The Dakshin Dinajpur District DCIT, Circle 3 Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. 1st Floor, Netaji Market Complex, Kachari Road, Balurghat, Rathbari, Malda-732101 Vs. Dakshin Dinajpur, PIN-733101 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAAJD0642H Assessee by : Shri Dilip Chatterjee, AR Revenue by : Ms. Archana Gupta, DR Date of hearing: 14.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 10.02.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1069/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 1069/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Adhunik Infrastructures Kolkata Vs. Private Limited (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCA1315L Appearances: Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR. Assessee represented by : Miraj D. Shah, AR. Date of concluding the hearing : 16-January-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 09-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the ord…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…the basis for creating charge for levying tax as each transaction has to be independently inquired into. It is a time tested Principle of Law that Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the character of evidence. In the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, [87 ITR 349] (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the onus to prove that the apparent is not real - is on the party who claims it to be so and the burden of proving a transaction as bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising…

MRS. JIGNA HIREN RAMBHIA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5033/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 391Section 68

…t reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 wherein it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of ITA No. 5033/Mum/2025; Jigna Hiren Rambhia, Mumbai surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT (Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising…

VEEDOL CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1945/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 4(1) Veedol Corporation Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Yule House, 8, Dr. Rajendra 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001, Vs. Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct1122C Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, DR

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…of the club expenses and facility on adhoc basis without giving any reasoning/ justification for the same. In our opinion, the disallowance cannot be made on estimation and presumption basis as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 Veedol Corporation Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 (SC)vide order dated 12-09-1972 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) dated 05-03- 1959. We also note that in our opinion, the club expenses incurred by the assessee which is a corporate entity is wholly and exclusively admissible as has been held in the case of C…

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 4282/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…lly be attracted. This is the ratio of decision in Fakir Mohmed Hajj Hasan vs. CIT [20021 120 Taxman 1 1 (Gujarat). Reliance was also laced upon the following: a) Lakhmichand Baijnath vs CIT, West Bengal, [1958] 35 ITR 416 b) Daulatram Rawatmull vs CIT [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) c) Mansfield & sons vs CIT [1963] 48 iTR 254 d) Shri Manoj Chainsukh Asawa Vs. ITO, Ward-4 (1), Nagpur, LT A. No. 179/Nag/2014 e) M/s. Sri Balamurugan Textile vs ACIT, 'ITA 344 of 2009 dated 15.072019 (Mad) 7.3 I have considered facts of the case as well as written subrnissions of the appellant. The appellant is carrying out business of tradi…

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

ITA 3609/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

TAFSEER AHMAD,LUCKNOW vs. DDIT/ADIT(INTL TAX)LKN, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…before invoking Section 69A. The AO's failure to follow such binding instructions vitiates the assessment. 7. Additions based on suspicion and conjecture: It is well-settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof (CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [87 ITR 349 (SC)]). The impugned additions, resting on unsubstantiated assumptions, are liable to be deleted. 8. Rajkot ITAT Cash Deposits During Demonetisation Explained The Rajkot Tribunal held that if the source of demonetisation- period deposits is satisfactorily explained, additions under Section 69A are not justified. 9. Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT […

DEVEN CHAUDHRY,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…urt is entitled to interfere. A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under s. 66(1) as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse” 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. DaulatramRawatmal (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) holding that onus of proving what was apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. There should be some direct nexus between the conclusions of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned and the primary facts upon which the conclusion is based. Use of extraneous or irrelevant material in arriving at the conclusion would viti…

SUDHIR CHAUDHRY,MATHURA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1(3)(1),, MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…rt is entitled to interfere. A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under s. 66(1) as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse” 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. DaulatramRawatmal (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) holding that onus of proving what was apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. There should be some direct nexus between the conclusions of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned and the primary facts upon which the conclusion is based. Use of extraneous or irrelevant material in arriving at the conclusion would viti…

HARISH BANGA,HISAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 4893/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) Harish Banga, Assessment Unit, 264, Bank Colony, Hisar, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit Haryana – 125001. Income Tax Department, Pan – Abqpb 8845 F New Delhi-110001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri H.K. Batra, Ca & Shri Naman Chawla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12 .2025 O R D E R Per : Pawan Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 08.07.2025 Vide Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri H.K. Batra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Virender Kumar Singh, SR. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56Section 57

…ia account payee cheques dated 15/01/2018 and 18/01/2018 totaling Rs. 9,00,000/-) and corroborated by bank statements. The requirement of proving genuineness beyond banking transactions is contrary to settled law, as held in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC). 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the commission paid to Smt. Suman Devi (2/3rd of the total commission of Rs. 13,50,380/-) was in accordance with the verbal agreement for introducing new customers to M/s Future Maker Life Care Pvt. Ltd., which was a common practice in multi-level marketing (MLM) businesses. 2.5 The Ld. CIT(A) err…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S MAXXON VANIJYA & RESOURCES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 89/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250

…2010) 003 ITR (Trib) 0372, CIT v. Samir Biotech Pvt. Ltd. ITA No415/2008 of Delhi High Court, CIT v, Value Capital Services P. Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 334 (Delhi), CIT' vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (CC 375/2008) dated 21-1-2008, CIT v. Daulat Rant Rawatmuli [87 ITR 349 (SC)], (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195 CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., (2011) 239 CTR 0478 :(2010) 194 TAXMAN 0043 :(2010) 045 DTR 0281 CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd., Bharti Syntex Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2011) 052 DTR 0073, CIT v. Chandela Trading Co. P. Ltd. 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1383 (Cal-HC). However, the Ld. DR brought to our notice that no such discussi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. SINGHVI LICKMI CHAND, VELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue

ITA 971/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), Pan: Aaapl 6736A Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 153ASection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद! एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! के सम( BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.643, 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Singvi Lickmi Chand, The Dy. Commissioner of No.3, Kasi Chetty Street, Vs. Income Tax, Ambur – 635 803. Central Circle-3(3), PAN: AAAPL 6736A Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.968, 969, 970 & 971/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण…

Showing 1–20 of 525 · Page 1 of 27

...