CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT v. Vivek Aggarwal

300 ITR 426High Court2008#2282 most cited

What is CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT v. Vivek Aggarwal authority for?

Assessments cannot be based merely on assumptions, suspicion, guesswork, or conjecture without corroborative material. Additions require evidence to support conclusions.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary · presumption · assumption · corroborative material · unexplained money · addition · assessment · guess work · suspicion · conjecture · irrelevant inadmissible material · section 153A · section 143(3) · section 68 · section 69 · section 132(4) · section 132(4A) · section 142(1) · section 69A

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 142(1)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 44afvoluntary admissionsection 132(5)jewellery found during searchabatement of assessmentthird party informationsection 100section 153(c)(1)section 158b(b)section 150unexplained jewellerysection 94

Judgments citing CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT v. Vivek Aggarwal

Mrs. Sumedha Sudam Kamthe, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2172/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69C

…pecially when no evidence of cash transaction was found. He stressed that the CIT(A) had asked assessee to prove the negative and assessee cannot prove the same. He has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Salek Chand Aggarwal, reported as 300 ITR 426 (Allahabad) ii) Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal Vs.Tax Recovery Officer, in ITA No.334/PUN/2013, A.Y.2004-05 decided on 30th May, 2014. iii) Straptex (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, reported as 84 ITD 320 (Mum.) iv) Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar, reported as 97 ITR 696 (Bombay). 11. The Ld. AR…

Asst CIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Neetish R. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 144/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Neetish R Doshi Income Tax-4(3)(2), 17, Gr. Floor, Sumernagar Room No.649 Building, No.01, Near Kora Aayakar Bhavan Kendra Kendra Flyover, M.K.Road, New Marine Lines S.V.Road, Borivali West Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan/Gir No. Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…as further relied on a statement made by Shri Nilesh Ajmera, which is a third party statement. The AO has not corroborated such statement with any evidence so as to implicate the appellant. The case law relied on by the appellant in CIT v. Salelachand Agarwal 300 ITR 426 is supports the explanation of the appellant. 1 also agree with AR when he argues that in order that section 69A may apply, the AO should have discharged her primary onus of reasonably proving that the appellant advanced cash as alleged. A mere statement of a third party without any evidence cannot be used to discharge the primary onus of the AO…

Networth Stock Broking Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3332/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 commission received by it without making claim for any speculation loss, addition was not justified. 5.9.11 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426(A 11 held that in the absence of any muterial to link the assessee with the advance/deposit appearing in his name in the books of accounts of a firm except the said credit entries, and in view of denial by the assessee that he made such advance/deposit with the firm and, provisions of Sec.69 are not attracted and, therefore the impugned addition…

ACIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Networth Stock Broking Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3228/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 commission received by it without making claim for any speculation loss, addition was not justified. 5.9.11 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426(A 11 held that in the absence of any muterial to link the assessee with the advance/deposit appearing in his name in the books of accounts of a firm except the said credit entries, and in view of denial by the assessee that he made such advance/deposit with the firm and, provisions of Sec.69 are not attracted and, therefore the impugned addition…

Networth Stock Broking Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2288/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 commission received by it without making claim for any speculation loss, addition was not justified. 5.9.11 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426(A 11 held that in the absence of any muterial to link the assessee with the advance/deposit appearing in his name in the books of accounts of a firm except the said credit entries, and in view of denial by the assessee that he made such advance/deposit with the firm and, provisions of Sec.69 are not attracted and, therefore the impugned addition…

ACIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Networth Stock Broking Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2268/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 commission received by it without making claim for any speculation loss, addition was not justified. 5.9.11 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426(A 11 held that in the absence of any muterial to link the assessee with the advance/deposit appearing in his name in the books of accounts of a firm except the said credit entries, and in view of denial by the assessee that he made such advance/deposit with the firm and, provisions of Sec.69 are not attracted and, therefore the impugned addition…

Sh. Deen Dayal Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2598/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Yogendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68Section 69

…. Gupta, there was no material which could link the amount of the addition of Rs.9,36,56,472/- by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of section 69 were not attracted in the present case. Our view is further supported Chand Aggarwal [300 ITR 426] and further Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Usha Kant and Sons [282 ITR 553 (Guj.)]. We are also constrained to state further that though there may be strong possible inference, a further investigation in the form of oral examination of the parties concerned and throwing back onus on the respective parties by affording full opport…

Sh. Deen Dayal Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2597/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Yogendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68Section 69

…. Gupta, there was no material which could link the amount of the addition of Rs.9,36,56,472/- by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of section 69 were not attracted in the present case. Our view is further supported Chand Aggarwal [300 ITR 426] and further Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Usha Kant and Sons [282 ITR 553 (Guj.)]. We are also constrained to state further that though there may be strong possible inference, a further investigation in the form of oral examination of the parties concerned and throwing back onus on the respective parties by affording full opport…

Deen Dayal Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1598/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Yogendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68Section 69

…. Gupta, there was no material which could link the amount of the addition of Rs.9,36,56,472/- by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of section 69 were not attracted in the present case. Our view is further supported Chand Aggarwal [300 ITR 426] and further Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Usha Kant and Sons [282 ITR 553 (Guj.)]. We are also constrained to state further that though there may be strong possible inference, a further investigation in the form of oral examination of the parties concerned and throwing back onus on the respective parties by affording full opport…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Deen Dayal Goel, New Delhi

ITA 1363/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Yogendra Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68Section 69

…. Gupta, there was no material which could link the amount of the addition of Rs.9,36,56,472/- by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that provisions of section 69 were not attracted in the present case. Our view is further supported Chand Aggarwal [300 ITR 426] and further Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Usha Kant and Sons [282 ITR 553 (Guj.)]. We are also constrained to state further that though there may be strong possible inference, a further investigation in the form of oral examination of the parties concerned and throwing back onus on the respective parties by affording full opport…