CIT v. Ramesh Bhayana

296 ITR 101High Court2008#8399 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramesh Bhayana

MOHAMMED ABDUL NAJEEB,GULBARGA, KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

ITA 1175/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA
Section 127Section 131(1)(d)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1175/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Mohammad Abdul Najeeb, H.No. 81, 4th Cross, Hussain Garden, MSK Mill, Kalaburagi – 585 103. Karnataka. PAN: ABCPA3077A APPELLANT Assessee by Revenue by : Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Vs. Bellari. RESPONDENT Date of Hearing : 02-06-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-08-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 425/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…on and assessment deserve to be quashed. Refer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 424/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…on and assessment deserve to be quashed. Refer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 423/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…on and assessment deserve to be quashed. Refer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 422/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…on and assessment deserve to be quashed. Refer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 421/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…on and assessment deserve to be quashed. Refer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 420/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…on and assessment deserve to be quashed. Refer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 418/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…on and assessment deserve to be quashed. Refer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without…

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 417/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…on and assessment deserve to be quashed. Refer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without…

M/S. FROLIC REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

ITA 364/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e deleted. The Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited v. CIT (26 ITR 775) has held that the ITO cannot make assessment on a pure guess without any evidence or material and hence, such ad hoc disallowance is unjustified. • In CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana (296 ITR 101(P&H)): wherein it has been held that Mere conjectures and surmises cannot form basis for making additions • That the learned AO cannot treat only one side (i.e.) credit side as bogus and make addition when he himself is accepting the debit side there of as correct. • In case of ITO v. Nisha Danish Merchant (I.T.A.NO.4329/Mum/2009) it was observed…

M/S. ASPIRANT MERCANTILE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

ITA 363/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e deleted. The Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited v. CIT (26 ITR 775) has held that the ITO cannot make assessment on a pure guess without any evidence or material and hence, such ad hoc disallowance is unjustified. • In CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana (296 ITR 101(P&H)): wherein it has been held that Mere conjectures and surmises cannot form basis for making additions • That the learned AO cannot treat only one side (i.e.) credit side as bogus and make addition when he himself is accepting the debit side there of as correct. • In case of ITO v. Nisha Danish Merchant (I.T.A.NO.4329/Mum/2009) it was observed…

M/S. AVOCADO TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

ITA 362/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e deleted. The Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited v. CIT (26 ITR 775) has held that the ITO cannot make assessment on a pure guess without any evidence or material and hence, such ad hoc disallowance is unjustified. • In CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana (296 ITR 101(P&H)): wherein it has been held that Mere conjectures and surmises cannot form basis for making additions • That the learned AO cannot treat only one side (i.e.) credit side as bogus and make addition when he himself is accepting the debit side there of as correct. • In case of ITO v. Nisha Danish Merchant (I.T.A.NO.4329/Mum/2009) it was observed…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-2,(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SHRI PRAVEEN SALUJA, BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 92/BIL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR
Section 106Section 131Section 69ASection 69C

…any evidence on record to substantiate his presumption in this regard. It is settled position of law that in the scrutiny assessments that too completed as held by the SC in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 JTR 775 (SC). In CIT v Bhayana (2008) 296 ITR 101 (P&H) it was held that in case the explanation of the appellant was to be disbelieved, the AO should have some material to rebut the same. Mere conjectures and surmises cannot form the basis for making additions. To the extent of income and assets, entered in the current books, there is no question of any allegation for concealment of income. In…

CIT v. Ramesh Bhayana (296 ITR 101) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax