CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

87 ITR 349Supreme Court of India1973#124 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 366,470 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 68Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 69CSection 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementdumb documentscreditworthiness of the creditorbogus long term capital gainsection 132(4a)section 292csection 132(4)loose papersaddition under section 68section 10(38)section 127on-money

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

CIT vs. M/S. M.S. International Ltd

ITA-999/2006HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…sion to which they have come: and this, even though the Court of Review would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from theirs.” To the same effect are the observations of the Supreme court in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, (1973) 87 ITR 349: - “…..Before dealing with the facts of this case, we may advert to the principles which should govern the decisions of the court in such like cases. Findings on questions of pure fact arrived at by the Tribunal are not to be disturbed by the High Court on a reference unless it 2012:DHC:6113-DB ITA 999/2006, 210/2007, 575/2007, 1394/200…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. M.S. International Ltd

ITA/999/2006HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…sion to which they have come: and this, even though the Court of Review would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from theirs.” To the same effect are the observations of the Supreme court in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, (1973) 87 ITR 349: - “…..Before dealing with the facts of this case, we may advert to the principles which should govern the decisions of the court in such like cases. Findings on questions of pure fact arrived at by the Tribunal are not to be disturbed by the High Court on a reference unless it 2012:DHC:6113-DB ITA 999/2006, 210/2007, 575/2007, 1394/200…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Sunaero Ltd

ITA - 562 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 4Section 45Section 47

…Page 36 of 38 was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material and thereby an issue of law arises.” 33. In CIT versus Daulat Ram Rawat Mull, (1973) 87 ITR 349, the Supreme Court held 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 con…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/562/2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 4Section 45Section 47

…Page 36 of 38 was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material and thereby an issue of law arises.” 33. In CIT versus Daulat Ram Rawat Mull, (1973) 87 ITR 349, the Supreme Court held 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 con…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/342/2011HC Delhi15 Feb 2012
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A

…oking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents.” In Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, (1973) 87 ITR 349, the Supreme Court dealt with the question as to when the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal can be interfered with in a reference made under Section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court referred to the leading case of Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow, (1955) 28 ITR 579 (H.L.) decided by the House of Lords…