CIT v. SMS Investment Corporation Private Limited

207 ITR 364High Court1994#5219 most cited

What is CIT v. SMS Investment Corporation Private Limited authority for?

Addition of unexplained investment and undisclosed income is unsustainable if based solely on material seized from a third party without corroborative evidence found in the assessee's case.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT vs SMS Investment Corporation Private Limited · section 132(4a) · section 292c · section 69b · loose papers · documents seized · tangible material · section 132(4) · unexplained investment · undisclosed income · search and seizure · incriminating material

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)section 292csection 69bsection 34loose papersdocuments seizedtangible materialsection 254section 132(4)unexplained investmentundisclosed incomesection 132

Judgments citing CIT v. SMS Investment Corporation Private Limited

Lalita Anup Anand, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7415/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2012-13 Smt. Lalita Anup Anand, Income Tax Officer 337, Ashish Indl. Estate, Ward-21(2)(2), बनाम/ Gokhale Road, Room No.111, 1St Floor, Vs. Dadar (West), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aadpa1527B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…. 10. Sec. 132(4A) of the Act uses the expression "it may be presumed". It is not obligatory on the assessing authority to make a presumption. Even if a presumption is required to be made, then, as held in CIT vs. S.M.S. Investment Corporation (P) Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 364 (Raj), the presumption is a rebuttable one and relates to a question of fact. While coming to this conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court relied upon an earlier decision rendered by it in CIT vs. S.M.S. Investment Corporation (1988) 73 CTR (Raj) 184 : (1988) 173 ITR 393 (Raj). 26 Lalita anup Anand 11. Even in ITO vs. T. Abdul Majeed (1987) 64 CTR…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary

ITA/903/2007HC Delhi19 Feb 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

Section 132Section 69

…t uses the expression “it may be presumed”. It is not obligatory on the assessing authority to make a presumption. Even if a presumption is required to be made, then, as held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.M.S. Investment Corporation P. Ltd., [1994] 207 ITR 364, the presumption is a rebuttable one and relates to a question of fact. While coming to this conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court relied upon an earlier decision rendered by it in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.M.S. Investment Corporation, [1988] 173 ITR 393. 11. Even in Income Tax Officer, B-Ward, Ernakulam v. T. Abdul ITA No.90…