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

ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1306/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin V/S. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalfm 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 11/04/2025, Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Ito Vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 68

…s operandi without confronting the assessee or bringing any specific material on record could not justify the addition. Placing reliance on judicial precedents including Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC), and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), the CIT(A) held that suspicion, conjectures, and surmises cannot take the place of evidence. Accordingly, it was held that the Assessing Officer had made the addition merely on the basis of general suspicion without any corrobo…

Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

…de by him duly substantiated by passport and Italian ID cards (PB No. 30 to 38) and supported by an FIR lodged with Shyam Nagar Police (PB No. 39-41). The Revenue has failed to disprove this uncontroverted evidence, and as held in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349 SC) the burden lies on the department to prove ownership of unexplained money. Further, in CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570 SC) the Supreme Court clarified that additions under Section 69A are discretionary and cannot be made where credible explanations are available. Since the authorities ignored this crucial evidence and proceeded purely on pr…

Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Kansagra, Rajkot vs. ACIT Cir - 2(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 409/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.409/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Acit Kansagara, Circle – 2(1), C-507, Imperial Heights, Rajkot - 360001 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot - 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acspk6893P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Alpa V. Makadiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…vt. Ltd. (2020) 117 taxmann.com 451 (Bom)] 5. That the assessment and appellate proceedings are vitiated due to lack of independent verification by the AO/CIT(A), and the addition is based on mere suspicion and conjectures. [CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)] 6. That the order of the learned CIT(A) is non-speaking and mechanical, passed without properly considering the submissions and evidences furnished, and hence bad in law. [Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851; Pr. CIT v. Vama Sundari Investment (Delhi HC)] 7. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in relying upon gen…

Usha Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 44(6), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1233/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Usha Devi, Ito, 30B/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), Delhi-110026, Delhi. Vs Delhi. Pan- Aafpa1096H Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…stant case. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee on merits are hereby allowed. 3. Where assessee made a possible explanation and department is not accepting the same then onus is on revenue to prove that apparent is not real, CIT V. DAULATRAM RAWATMULL 87 ITR 349 (SC) (97-105) CIT V Salek Chand Agarwala -300 ITR 426(ALL) (106-107)” 8.1 Further, the Ld. AR without prejudice to the above contention submitted relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMILE Microfinance Limited vs. ACIT, writ petition (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 and 1742 of 2020 (order dated 19.11.2024), which held that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

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

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…o prove why the assessee's case cannot be accepted..." 5.2.3.6. Further it is pertinent to note that the appellant is not required to explain the source of source as held by the judicial forums in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corp. V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.); (iii) Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Ass.); (iv) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1998) 32 TTJ 300 (Pune ITAT). The appellant's prima facie reasonable explanation cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary ground or on mere suspicious or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds as held by…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

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

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…o prove why the assessee's case cannot be accepted..." 5.2.3.6. Further it is pertinent to note that the appellant is not required to explain the source of source as held by the judicial forums in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corp. V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.); (iii) Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Ass.); (iv) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1998) 32 TTJ 300 (Pune ITAT). The appellant's prima facie reasonable explanation cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary ground or on mere suspicious or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds as held by…

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 555/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

…been judicially settled that onus of proving what was apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. Reliance is placed on the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) 112-09-1972) It is not out of place to mention here that provisions of Sec. 292C of the Act creates an irrebuttable presumption that the contents of documents found and seized during search is true and correct. Thus, Ld. AO could not have objected to submission of assessee regarding source of said money. Since source of receipt held to be und…

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 554/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

…been judicially settled that onus of proving what was apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. Reliance is placed on the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) 112-09-1972) It is not out of place to mention here that provisions of Sec. 292C of the Act creates an irrebuttable presumption that the contents of documents found and seized during search is true and correct. Thus, Ld. AO could not have objected to submission of assessee regarding source of said money. Since source of receipt held to be und…

Faujdar Construction Company, Bharatpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharatpur

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

ITA 560/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: SHRI DHEERAJ BORAD, C.AFor Respondent: MRS. ANITA RINESH, JCIT-DR
Section 145(3)

…hout any material. It further held that there must be something more than bare suspicion to support an assessment: a) Dhakeswari vs. CIT 26 (TR 775, 782(SC) b) DhirajlalGirdhariLalVs CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC) Assessment Years: 2018-19 c) CIT VsDaulatramRawat mull 87 ITR 349 (SC) d) Omar salay Mohammed vs CIT 37 ITR 1 5 1 (SC) CIT vs. Kameshwar I ITR 94, 106(PC) 10. Besides the appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon various judicial pronouncements in addition to what is mentioned above in these written submission and the list of such judicial pronouncements inter-alia containing brief narration and citation…

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Ramrao Adik Educ Society, Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2276/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

…elow in this regard - (i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC): (ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC): (iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC): (iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC): 33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the materials received, the AO noticed that the assessee has received certain amount as corpus donations. The AO did not accept the claim of the assessee that these are genuine donations received and are accounted in the books of the assessee. The AO held that these are accomm…

DCIT Central Circle 7 1, Mumbai vs. Ramrao Adik Educ Society, Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2272/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…elow in this regard – (i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC): (ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC): (iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC): (iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC): 64 ITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025 Ramrao Adik Education Society 33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the materials received, the AO noticed that the assessee has received certain amount as corpus donations. The AO did not accept the claim of the assessee that these are genuine donations received and…

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Ramrao Adik Educ Society, Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2271/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…elow in this regard - (i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC): (ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC): (iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC): (iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC): 33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the materials received, the AO noticed that the assessee has received certain amount as corpus donations. The AO did not accept the claim of the assessee that these are genuine donations received and are accounted in the books of the assessee. The AO held that these are accomm…

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…elow in this regard - (i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC): (ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC): (iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC): (iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC): 33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the materials received, the AO noticed that the assessee has received certain amount as corpus donations. The AO did not accept the claim of the assessee that these are genuine donations received and are accounted in the books of the assessee. The AO held that these are accomm…

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…elow in this regard - (i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC): (ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC): (iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC): (iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC): 64 ITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025 Ramrao Adik Education Society 33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the materials received, the AO noticed that the assessee has received certain amount as corpus donations. The AO did not accept the claim of the assessee that these are genuine donations received and…

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1509/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…elow in this regard - (i) CIT v. P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC): (ii) CIT v. ITR 540 (SC): Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 itr 540 (SC): (iii)PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC): (iv)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC): 64 ITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025 Ramrao Adik Education Society 33. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the materials received, the AO noticed that the assessee has received certain amount as corpus donations. The AO did not accept the claim of the assessee that these are genuine donations received and…

Sonthalia Capital Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.958/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sonthalia Capital Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata 3Rd Unit No.3, Floor, Ideal Centre, 9, Ajc Bose Road, Circus Aenue, So Kolkata-17 Pan No. :Aabck 4477 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Company Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The 2017-18 & Declaring Total Income Of Rs. Rs. 10,14,610/-. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Appellant Company & Duly Complied With. Subsequently Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed On 24.12.2019 Determining Total Income At Rs.59,14,610/-. While Framing The Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Has Made Additions Under Section 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.25,00,000/- & 24,00,000/- With Respect To Loan Received From Linkwise Dealtrade Private Limited (In Short ‘Ldpl’) & Ambala Trafin Private Limited (In Short ‘Atpl’), Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…essee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect of one of the lender M/s. Fast Glow Distributors. The assessee responded to the show cause noti…

Maruthi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 873/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

Malla Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 872/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 12A

…In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

Malla Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 871/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…

Cmr Engineering Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 870/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…In our considered view, suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). A similar view has been taken by the CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, i…