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 367,368 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

Mr. Ratansingh M. Rathod, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT - 32(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1869/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Ratansingh M. Rathore V. Acit -32(3) 502, Sushila Apartment Room No. 732, 7Th Floor Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400092 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aacpr4164L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subhash ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

…tempted it. Wide though his powers be, he must act in consonance with rules of natural justice. One such rule is that he shall not use any material against the assessee without giving him an opportunity to meet it — Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775. The source of information for the material against the assessee need not be divulged. In fairness to the assessee he should be told what is against him, so that he may, if he can, displace it. It is no denial of natural justice if the ITO refuses to produce an informant for being cross-examined by the assessee". The Hon'ble Court went on to hold…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Asansol Kolkata vs. Rajesh Jhunjhunwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/26/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar Periwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/136/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Siliguri vs. Sri Satya Narayan Saria

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/168/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Jemish Shah

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/57/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mukesh Saraogi (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/76/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Kolkata vs. Mukta Agarwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/44/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Burdwan vs. Bijaya Tah

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/122/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Siliguri vs. Prakasho Devi Saria

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/138/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata vs. Krishna Kumar Parsuramka

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/130/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Asansol Kolkata vs. Rakesh Jhunjhunwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/27/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Aayush Jhunjhunwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/88/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central -1, Kolkata vs. Suraj Sahana

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/41/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15, Kolkata vs. Smt. Babita Agarwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/64/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-18, Kolkata vs. Sri Vikash Goel

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/85/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Pr CIT 9, Kolkata vs. Manisha Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/155/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Siliguri vs. Shekhar Agarwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/139/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9, Kolkata vs. Puspa Devi Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/150/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. Gitesh Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/154/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Pooja Jhunjhunwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/87/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…