Dbakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

52 ITR 231Reported decision1964#15995 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Dbakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…Mills Ltd. vs CIT,(1954) 26 ITR 775 has observe that the A.O is not entitled to make a pure guessand make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material atall. This proposition has been followed in case of-Raj Mohan Saha& Others vs CIT (1962) 52 ITR 231 - A.K.A.CT.V.CT.AlagappaChettiar& Others vs CIT (1963) 56 ITR 605 D. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessmentu/s 23 (3) of IT Act as held in the following cases Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 775 Gopinath Agarwal vs CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753, Madura Knitting Co.vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 BansidarOnk…

THE ACIT CEN CIR-13, MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURESH V. JAIN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…on the assessee. The assessment is not a leap in the dark. The AO is not entitled to make a guess without any evidence. This view is supported by the following decisions:- a)Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). b) Raj Mohan SahaVrs. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 231 (Assam) c) CIT v. Gokaldas Hukumchand (1943) 11 ITR 462 (Bom). d) Ram DattaSita Ram of Basti (1947) 15 ITR 61 (All) e) Narayan Chandra Baidya v. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287. 55 I.T.A. No. 5091 & 4198/Mum/2007 & CO-261/Mum/2007 Shri Suresh V. Jain f) GopiNathAgarwala v. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753 (All) g) United Patel Construction Co. v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 424…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. M/S.RE N RAGA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…essment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 143(3) vide; {Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT,(1954)26 ITR 775,782(SC); Raj Mohan Saha v. CIT, (1964)52 ITR 231 (Assam). Also see, CIT V. Gokaldas Hukumchand, (1943)11 ITR 462,469(Bom) … … 3.16 Recently, in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd [ INCOME TAX APPEAL N0.1613 OF 2014] it was held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that, "Bogus share capital/premium; The proviso to s.68(which creates and obligation on the issuing Co to explain the s…

DCIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. TRIMURTHI DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5052/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…ithout reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment u/s. 143(3), as has been held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC), Raj Mohanaha vs. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 231(Assam). Also see CTT vs. Gokaldas M/s. Trimurti Developers Hukumchand (1943) 11 ITR 462,469 (Bom), Ram Datta Sita Ram of Basti, in re,{1947) 15 ITR 61, 85 (All), Narayan Chandra Baidya vs. CTT (1951) 20 TTR 287, 292 (Cal), Gopi Nath Agarwala vs. CTT (1955) 28 ITR 75 3, 762 (All). 6,15 In view of the above discussion and various references of the f…

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…on no material at all or based on inadequate material, is bad in law, supports the case of the assessee. Reference can also be made to the following decisions:- a. Dbakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) b. Raj Mohan Saha Vs. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 231 (Assam) c. CIT Vs. Gokaldas Hukumehand (1943) 11 ITR 462 (Born) ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah d. Ram Datta Sita Ram of Basti (1947) 15 ITR 61 (All) e. Narayan Chandra Baidya Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287 In earlier paras of this order, we have already elaborated that the sale of shares of M/s. Robinson Impex Ltd during Assessm…

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)