Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

26 ITR 775Supreme Court of India1954#40 most cited

What is Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

1,061

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT · corroborative evidence · third-party premise · suspicion · surmises · conjecture · assessment · Income-tax Officer · evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 68Section 153CSection 153ASection 132(4)Section 115BBESection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)circular tradingsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 292crejection of books of accountloose paperssection 145(3)documents seizedsection 34section 145on-money

Judgments citing Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री जगदीश, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department by Assessee by सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Da…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3190/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 v. The ACIT, Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Central Circle-2(2), Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Chennai. Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3189/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 v. The ACIT, Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Central Circle-2(2), Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Chennai. Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3188/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 v. The ACIT, Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Central Circle-2(2), Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Chennai. Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Filatex India Limited, Delhi

ITA 5000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…t. 40. It is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessment should rest on principles of law Page | 43 ITA Nos.4635, 5000, 2060, 4999, 4648, 3988, 2061, 145…

ACIT, Delhi vs. Grand Estate LLP, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4740/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…t. 40.It is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessment should rest on principles of law and one should avoid presumption of evasion in every matter. Th…

Income Tax Officer Ward-28(5), Civic Centre J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as above

ITA 1737/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1737/Del/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, Ward-28(5), A-20, Krishna Park Khanpur E-2, Civic Centre, New Delhi J. L. Nehru Marg, PAN: AFHPA6442E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Respondent by Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Ms. Mansi Jain, CA, Ms. Sakshi Rustogi, Adv. Date of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal of the R…

Chirag Murdia, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 159/JODH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24Section 250

…ervation based on assumption, presumption and suspicion and his own guess work and it is the settled legal position of law that suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles. Kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held thatthe AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eyes of law. 2.3. Further when the ld. AO was…

Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 303/Jodh/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Heera Lal Kasara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 386, Udaipur Pran Group of Publicity, Ward 2(1), Near Alok School, Sector-11, Udaipur. Hiran Magri, Udaipur. PAN No. ACAPK9375L Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Amit Kothari, C.A. Sh. Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 25/06/2025 ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee again…

Amit Kumar Sen, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…tive facts and evidence. The arbitrary assumption that a difference in stock must equate to undisclosed sales is speculative. Without proper inquiry or verification, such additions are unsustainable under the law. 5. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC): • The Supreme Court emphasized that although the Ld. Assessing Officer has wide powers, they must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. Assessments must be based on material evidence. The addition of Rs.56,55,790/- in this case appears to be an arbitrary exercise of power, as it lacks any material basis or proper inquiry into the act…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun-New Creations and Marketign Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward 24(1) Vs. M/S Sun New Creations New Delhi & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 59/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) M/S Sun New Creations Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…surmises. It is settled legal position that in respect of income tax proceedings, although strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply, however, assessment proceedings cannot be made on the basis of imagination and suspicion. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). Although the AO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in Court of Law but he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or material at all, which he did in the case of the appellant company. In this respect,…

Tarun Muradia, Udaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 848/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132aSection 132tSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…no addition can be the basis of suspicion, assumptions’ and presumption. An allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles. Kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt. Ltd. 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 10 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur Kindly…

Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…ion merely on mere presumptions and surmises, without making any independent enquiry. Such an addition based on presumptions or assumptions is unsustainable [Ref: Dhirajlal Girdharilal v/s CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s CIT- (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika v/s CIT- (1959) 37ITR 288 (SC)} 8. The appellant further humbly submits that in any case, section 56(2)(vii)(c) envisages taxing the fair market value of the movable property received without consideration. Firstly, natural love and affection is a valid consideration as held in numerous judgements. Secondly, without u…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…reasonable and without any sanction of law. unreasonable and without any sanction of law. 31.17 In this regard, we refer to the deci In this regard, we refer to the decision of the sion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 laying down principles regarding estimation that while making assessment regarding estimation that while making assessment regarding estimation that while making assessment under Section 23(3) of the I der Section 23(3) of the Income Tax A…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…reasonable and without any sanction of law. unreasonable and without any sanction of law. 31.17 In this regard, we refer to the deci In this regard, we refer to the decision of the sion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 laying down principles regarding estimation that while making assessment regarding estimation that while making assessment regarding estimation that while making assessment under Section 23(3) of the I der Section 23(3) of the Income Tax A…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…reasonable and without any sanction of law. unreasonable and without any sanction of law. 31.17 In this regard, we refer to the deci In this regard, we refer to the decision of the sion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 laying down principles regarding estimation that while making assessment regarding estimation that while making assessment regarding estimation that while making assessment under Section 23(3) of the I der Section 23(3) of the Income Tax A…

Prime Mineral Exports Private Limited (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), Panaji vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 3/PAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

For Appellant: Mr Nishant Thakkar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M. Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 41(1)Section 4I

…sessee or by the department. Since impugned addition is unsupported by any material hence deserves to be deleted. To drum out the impugned addition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT’ [1954, 26 ITR 775 (SC)]. ITAT-Panaji Page 29 of 42 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd.(Now Amalgamated with Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) Vs JCIT, Panaji ITA Nos.003/PAN/2023 AY: 2009-10 6.5 Per contra, the Revenue contended that, in absence of statutory inventory records and certification of loss as was necessary to be obtained under applicable mining & other laws,…

DCIT CC-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Oswal Fashion (P) Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurva Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 246ASection 68

…ncorrect figures which clearly show that the assessment has been framed only for the purpose of making the addition which is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The AR relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775). The AR has filed copy of the balance sheet along with the computation of income for the two years. A perusal of the same shows that the assessee has duly disclosed the calculation of capital gains on the sale of shares giving the sale consideration amount along with the date of purchase and cost of purchase, resulting into loss after applying in…

DCIT CC-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Oswal Fashion (P) Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1018/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurva Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 246ASection 68

…ncorrect figures which clearly show that the assessment has been framed only for the purpose of making the addition which is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The AR relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775). The AR has filed copy of the balance sheet along with the computation of income for the two years. A perusal of the same shows that the assessee has duly disclosed the calculation of capital gains on the sale of shares giving the sale consideration amount along with the date of purchase and cost of purchase, resulting into loss after applying in…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2233/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

…sessee requires to be construed as reasonable and the decision of an authority based on misplaced suspicion, conjecture and surmises is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessment should rest on principles of law and one should avoid presumption of evasion in every matter. 7.2…