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

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…, etc or other evidence found during course of search which cannot be basis for addition. That no quasi- judicial order can be based on suspicion or assumption. The following judgements are supporting the assessee case: • Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Page 102 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • Bansal Strips (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2006), 99 ITD 177 Delhi • CBI vs V C Shukla (19…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…, etc or other evidence found during course of search which cannot be basis for addition. That no quasi- judicial order can be based on suspicion or assumption. The following judgements are supporting the assessee case: • Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Page 102 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • Bansal Strips (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2006), 99 ITD 177 Delhi • CBI vs V C Shukla (19…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…, etc or other evidence found during course of search which cannot be basis for addition. That no quasi- judicial order can be based on suspicion or assumption. The following judgements are supporting the assessee case: • Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Page 102 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • Bansal Strips (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2006), 99 ITD 177 Delhi • CBI vs V C Shukla (19…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…, etc or other evidence found during course of search which cannot be basis for addition. That no quasi- judicial order can be based on suspicion or assumption. The following judgements are supporting the assessee case: • Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Page 102 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • Bansal Strips (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2006), 99 ITD 177 Delhi • CBI vs V C Shukla (19…

ACIT, Circle CC 15, New Delhi vs. Alka Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

…vidence Act do not apply to Income-tax proceedings, assessments cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) and a host of Supreme Court and High Court's judgments thereafter on the subject. We, therefore, direct deletion of the sum of Rs.17,00,892/- assessed by the Assessing Officer by way of half share of the Assessee in the alleged earnest money. 13. It is an admitted fact that the present Assessee had not signed the agreement in question and si…

ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Yash Pal Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 69

…vidence Act do not apply to Income-tax proceedings, assessments cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) and a host of Supreme Court and High Court's judgments thereafter on the subject. We, therefore, direct deletion of the sum of Rs.17,00,892/- assessed by the Assessing Officer by way of half share of the Assessee in the alleged earnest money. 13. It is an admitted fact that the present Assessee had not signed the agreement in question and si…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…ral justice is null and void 8. A K Kraipak Vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150 The aim of natural justice is to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. 9. C Vasanntlal & Co. Vs CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 10. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) The powers given to the Income-tax Officer under s. 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, however wide, do not entitle him to base the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material.An assessment under : 9.23(3)of the Act cannot be made only on bare suspicion. An ssessment so made without disclosing to the assesse…

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Viral Saraf Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…cord by the AO. Hon'ble Courts have also held that each transaction is required to be independently inquired into. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the character of evidence as held in the decisions reported in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewala v. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.). T…

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…out at a third party, can the said information be used against the assessee without sharing such information with the assessee and the Assessing officer. 2.10 In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB 812- 818) has held that “The rule of law on this subject has been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Sinqh where it was stated that while proceeding under sub-section (3) of section 23, the Income-tax Officer, though not bound to rely on evidence produced by the assessee as he c…

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…out at a third party, can the said information be used against the assessee without sharing such information with the assessee and the Assessing officer. 2.10 In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB 812- 818) has held that “The rule of law on this subject has been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Sinqh where it was stated that while proceeding under sub-section (3) of section 23, the Income-tax Officer, though not bound to rely on evidence produced by the assessee as he c…

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…fficer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence and material at all. There must be something more than suspicion to support the assessment. Case Laws relied upon; Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 1954, 26 ITR 775 (SC).The same principle is also reiterated in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros, vs CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC). It was held that a suspicion however, strong may not take the place of proof. The conclusion which are based on surmises and conjectures, cannot take the place of proof. Case relied upon: • CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda (SC) dated 28.03.2018 : As per t…

Mohd Hussain Kagdi, Ratlam vs. The It&Tp, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 120/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Mohd. Hussain Kagdi, Ito (I.T. & T.P.), 15, Tripoliya Gate, Bhopal बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Atzpk 4811 B Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 254(2)Section 69Section 69A

…assessee’s registered sale-deed and bank a/c only upon assumption, presumption or suspicion and made/upheld addition but it is a trite that no addition can be made on mere suspicion or presumption as held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohd. Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Umacharan Shaw & Bros. Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). Page 6 of 10 Mohd. Hussain Kagdi , Ratlam vs. ITO (IT & TP), Bhopal I.T.A.No. 120/Ind/2021 – A.Y. 2011-12 8. Per contra, Ld. DR for Revenue submitted that the assessee has purchased the impugned land through a Registered-Deed a…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 80/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…tlal & Co. v. CIT: (1962] 45 ITR 206, or the A.P. High Court in the case of Yaggina Veeraraghavulu and Mavuleti Somaraju & Co v.CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528-535, among others underscore this point. As held in the case of Dhakesh wari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1954] 26 ITR 775, 785 (SC), the only fetter on the Assessing Officer acting on material that would otherwise be unacceptable to a court of law is that he should act honestly and fairly and not indulge in pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Ac…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…tlal & Co. v. CIT: (1962] 45 ITR 206, or the A.P. High Court in the case of Yaggina Veeraraghavulu and Mavuleti Somaraju & Co v.CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528-535, among others underscore this point. As held in the case of Dhakesh wari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1954] 26 ITR 775, 785 (SC), the only fetter on the Assessing Officer acting on material that would otherwise be unacceptable to a court of law is that he should act honestly and fairly and not indulge in pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Ac…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 78/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…tlal & Co. v. CIT: (1962] 45 ITR 206, or the A.P. High Court in the case of Yaggina Veeraraghavulu and Mavuleti Somaraju & Co v.CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528-535, among others underscore this point. As held in the case of Dhakesh wari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1954] 26 ITR 775, 785 (SC), the only fetter on the Assessing Officer acting on material that would otherwise be unacceptable to a court of law is that he should act honestly and fairly and not indulge in pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Ac…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 77/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…tlal & Co. v. CIT: (1962] 45 ITR 206, or the A.P. High Court in the case of Yaggina Veeraraghavulu and Mavuleti Somaraju & Co v.CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528-535, among others underscore this point. As held in the case of Dhakesh wari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1954] 26 ITR 775, 785 (SC), the only fetter on the Assessing Officer acting on material that would otherwise be unacceptable to a court of law is that he should act honestly and fairly and not indulge in pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Ac…

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 75/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…tlal & Co. v. CIT: (1962] 45 ITR 206, or the A.P. High Court in the case of Yaggina Veeraraghavulu and Mavuleti Somaraju & Co v.CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528-535, among others underscore this point. As held in the case of Dhakesh wari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1954] 26 ITR 775, 785 (SC), the only fetter on the Assessing Officer acting on material that would otherwise be unacceptable to a court of law is that he should act honestly and fairly and not indulge in pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Ac…

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 74/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…tlal & Co. v. CIT: (1962] 45 ITR 206, or the A.P. High Court in the case of Yaggina Veeraraghavulu and Mavuleti Somaraju & Co v.CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528-535, among others underscore this point. As held in the case of Dhakesh wari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1954] 26 ITR 775, 785 (SC), the only fetter on the Assessing Officer acting on material that would otherwise be unacceptable to a court of law is that he should act honestly and fairly and not indulge in pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Ac…

Ncc Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 73/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…tlal & Co. v. CIT: (1962] 45 ITR 206, or the A.P. High Court in the case of Yaggina Veeraraghavulu and Mavuleti Somaraju & Co v.CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528-535, among others underscore this point. As held in the case of Dhakesh wari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT: (1954] 26 ITR 775, 785 (SC), the only fetter on the Assessing Officer acting on material that would otherwise be unacceptable to a court of law is that he should act honestly and fairly and not indulge in pure guesswork in the act of making an assessment. That the Assessing Officer may take cognizance of a wider variety of facts than permitted under the Evidence Ac…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 805/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…anything to corroborate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT Page 26 of 42 M/s Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. ITA Nos. 793 to 799/Ind/2019 & ITA Nos. 800 to 805/Ind/2019 - AY 2009-10 to 2015-16 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed b…