What is CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC) authority for?

To make an addition under Section 69B for undisclosed investment, the Revenue must first prove that an understatement of investment has occurred and that the assessee made the undisclosed investment. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue, and additions cannot be based merely on presumptions or assumptions without corroborative material.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC)?

71 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC) (352 ITR 629), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69B, Section 153A, Section 143(3), Section 132(1), Section 56(2)(x), Section 14A.

CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF (Delhi HC) (352 ITR 629)

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) 41 ITA.No.987/PUN./2025 (M/s. Shree Sai Properties) viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 51. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible m…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…decision of the Income-tax Authorities cannot be approved. Section 69B was wrongly invoked. The order of the Tribunal is upheld. [Para 15] 2. 7-11 Commissioner of 5. This Court had in the decision reported as CIT v. Dinesh Income-tax, Delhi Jain, HUF [2013] 352 ITR 629/[2012] 211Taxman 23/25 -I taxmann.com 550 and connected cases occasioned to consider v. an identical question. Afternoticing the relevant provision, i.e. Agile Properties Section 69B, the Court noticed in paragraph 9 as follows: — (P.) Ltd, [2014] 45 13. The error committed by the income-tax authorities in taxmann.com 512 the present case is to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…at higher price than purchase consideration mentioned in the registered deed, which is not permissible in law. Section 69B is not applicable if there is no tangible evidence of understatement of purchase consideration. Reference is made to CIT vs. Dinesh Jain 352 ITR 629; CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595. 26. It is further stated that the contention of the appellant-assessee that no quasi-judicial order can be based on suspicion, surmises or conjecture is supported by the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs. CIT 26 ITR 726 (SC) (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CI…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…at higher price than purchase consideration mentioned in the registered deed, which is not permissible in law. Section 69B is not applicable if there is no tangible evidence of understatement of purchase consideration. Reference is made to CIT vs. Dinesh Jain 352 ITR 629; CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595. 26. It is further stated that the contention of the appellant-assessee that no quasi-judicial order can be based on suspicion, surmises or conjecture is supported by the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs. CIT 26 ITR 726 (SC) (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CI…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…at higher price than purchase consideration mentioned in the registered deed, which is not permissible in law. Section 69B is not applicable if there is no tangible evidence of understatement of purchase consideration. Reference is made to CIT vs. Dinesh Jain 352 ITR 629; CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595. 26. It is further stated that the contention of the appellant-assessee that no quasi-judicial order can be based on suspicion, surmises or conjecture is supported by the following judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs. CIT 26 ITR 726 (SC) (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CI…