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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 13 Kolkata vs. Smt Ganapati Devi Agarwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/34/2021HC 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, Kol vs. Sunita Goyal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/78/2021HC 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. Nitin Kumar Agarwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/36/2021HC 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 HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/89/2021HC 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 Kol 5 vs. Ranjika Gupta

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/80/2021HC 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. Neetu Agarwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/3/2021HC 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. Nand Kishore Agarwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/22/2021HC 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. M/S. Gopal Prasad Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/153/2021HC 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, Kol vs. Ramakant Beriwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/60/2021HC 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. M/S Girish Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/157/2021HC 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. Girish Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/156/2021HC 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. Gopal Prasad Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/151/2021HC 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. Swati Bajaj

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/6/2022HC 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…

M/S. Ajay Construction, Korba vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Korba(Cg)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 259/Bil/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Ajay Construction, Plot No. 155, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G) Pan : Aanfa0129P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (Cg) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Y. K. Mishra Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Y. K. MishraFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

…e adhoc disallowance out of material purchased and out of earth transporting charges, held that since the expenses under these heads were incurred for purposes of business, respectfully following the decision of the SC in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) it was held that such Adhoc disallowances made on the basis of guess work were not sustainable. Hence the A.O. was directed to delete such adhoc disallowances. 2.4 Your honour the jurisdictional hon'ble ITAT Bench of Raipur, in Assistant CIT Vs. Ind Synergy Ltd. (2016) 20 ITJ 108 it was held that the impugned adhoc disallowances on ground th…

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/3/2021HC Calcutta07 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…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch vs. Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel, Ankleshwar

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1830/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel, Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs I) A/96, Jalkamal Apartment, Bharuch. Near Manav Mandir, Gidc, Ankleshwar, Gujarat – 392002. Ii) 32, Surdhara Bunglow, Near Sai Hospital, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aebpp 2999 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Jimit Shah – Ca Revenue By Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr 22/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara Dated 29.04.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Development Expenses Of Rs.1,79,19,550/- Without Appreciating That The Purported Expenditure Was On Account Of Contractual Payment To Four Related Parties. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Payment Of The Labour Expenses To The Contractors Were Held Up For Three Years Of Sale Of Land & Payment Was Made In The Calendar Year 2015 Only After The A.O. Sought Proof Of Payment. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That Contractors Of The Assessee Have Also Held Up Payment To Their Creditors For A Long Span Of Three Years, Which Is Not Acceptable On Any Surmise. Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel

Section 14ASection 254(1)

…ined unexplained. It was submitted that the suspicious of highest degree cannot take place of evidence and without any corroborative evidences no additions can be made on suspicious basis. Reliance was placed on the case law of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Vs CIT (26 ITR 775 SC). The assessee explained that the addition made on account of disallowance of improvement expenses were liable to be deleted. 10. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the entire addition. The ld CIT(A) before deleting the additions observed that total indexed cost of improvement claimed by the assessee on non-…

Subramanian Alexander, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 7(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2765/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2765/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…. 14. The addition was just made simply on the basis of whims, surmises and conjectures. Assessment based on mere conjecture, surmises or suspicion is unsustainable in law, as held in Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). :-3-: ITA. No: 2765/Chny/2019 15. Therefore, the addition in this regard may kindly be deleted. 16.For the above reasons and other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the addition made by the Assessing Officer may kindly be deleted and justice be rendered. 17. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Sarthav Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 908/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 908/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sarthav Builders, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. B-1, Abhishree Complex, Ahmedabad. Opp. Star Bazar, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs3812C

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ilability of funds with the appellant firm is sufficient to meet the outflow of money deposited in the bank account and the AO cannot brush aside the said facts. The appellant firm relied upon the judgment in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 775 (SC).Considering all the aforesaid facts, I am in agreement with the contention of the appellant firm that the cash deposit in aggregate of ,Rs,1,10,19,084/- is out of the cash withdrawn from bank account which is duly explained by the appellant firm. Asstt. Year 2010-11 6 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I agree w…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ilability of funds with the appellant firm is sufficient to meet the outflow of money deposited in the bank account and the AO cannot brush aside the said facts. The appellant firm relied upon the judgment in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd, vs. CIT, 26 ITR 775 (SC).Considering all the aforesaid facts, I am in agreement with the contention of the appellant firm that the cash deposit in aggregate of Rs. 1,10,60,000/- is out of the cash withdrawn from bank account which is duly explained by the appellant firm. 15. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 16.…

DCIT, Central Circle-(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 797/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 797/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.173/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shreyasi Dharmen Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 2Nd Address: 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Awops1881R

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…nk both stand recorded in the cash book and the availability of funds with the appellant is sufficient to meet the outflow of money deposited in the bank account. The appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd, vs. CIT. 26 ITR 775 (SO. Considering all the aforesaid facts, I am in agreement with the contention of the appellant that the cash deposit in aggregate of Rs. 1,75,64,500/- is out of the cash withdrawn from bank account which is duly explained by the appellant. The appellant also in support of the contention that mere cash deposits made in the bank account of the app…