CWT v. Santokh Singh

252 ITR 707High Court2001#20120 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 270A Section 271(1)(c)Section 80-IC Section 80-IE

Judgments citing CWT v. Santokh Singh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 515 & 516/Mum/2025 filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 516/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Ms.Priyanka Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 80

…ied that the explanation is bona fide and the assessee has disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the explanation offered" The word "bona fide" is not defined under the Act. However, the Delhi High Court, in the case of CWT v. Santokh Singh: [2001] 252 ITR 707 has referred to the dictionary meaning of the word and observed as under: "Bona fide means something which is done in good faith, genuine, real. Per Bramwell LJ. in R. v. Holl [1881] 7 QBD 575 (CA), the equivalent of the phrase is "honestly...... According to Tomlin's Law Dictionary, the expression means in good faith, without fraud or deception;…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 515 & 516/Mum/2025 filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Ms.Priyanka Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 80

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 15, Chennai vs. Anitha Kumaran, Chennai

ITA 1164/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…erred by the assessee was the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s AL Ramanathan (245 ITR 494) wherein similar position was laid down. Similar was stated to the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CWT V/s Santosh Singh (252 ITR 707). 5.4 In the said background, it was further submitted that the corporate entity has separate independent existence having perpetual succession and common seal. However, the courts have permitted lifting of corporate veil to prevent injustice as held by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (119 ITR 399). 5.5 The assessee…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh Umesh Chandra Rustagi, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3179/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Vs. Umesh Chandra Rustagi, Ward 47(2), F-57, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpr4178N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ved Jain, Ca Department By: Shri Manoj K. Chopra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 .10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 :12.2015 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revenue Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In I) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,67,01,204 Made By The A.O. On Account Of Income From Long Term Capital Gain, Accepting The Assessee’S Version & Without Appreciating The Reasons For The Addition Mentioned By The A.O. In The Assessment Order; Ii) Holding That The Claim Of The Assessee That He Received Only 15% Share Of The Said Capital Gain Is Backed By Documentary Evidence Without Mentioning The Said Evidence & More So The Registered Sale Deed Of The Property Under Consideration & Dda’S Document (Conveyance Deed Dated 30.10.2006) Vehemently Supports The Fact That The Assessee’S Share In The Said Capital Gain Is 50% & Not 15% & The Basis Of Assessee’S Claim, The Deed Of Settlement Dated 09.02.2007 Is A Self Serving Document Only; Iii) Directing The A.O. To Allow The Cost Of Improvement/Additions For Working Out The Value Of Capital Gain Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Supporting Documentary Evidence In This Regard.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj K. Chopra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ld not produce any supporting documentary evidence. 7. The Learned AR on the other hand tried to justify the First Appellate Order. He reiterated the submissions made therein and placed reliance on the following decision: 1. CIT vs. Santokh Singh (2001) – 252 ITR 707 (Del.); 8. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) has decided the issues raised in the above grounds after discussing the matter in detail and submissions of the assessee meeting out the objection of the Assessing Officer. For a ready reference, the relevant para No. 1 of the First Appell…