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.

How many judgments cite Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT?

1,061 judgments on BharatTax cite Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 68, Section 153C, Section 153A, Section 132(4).

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775)

The DCIT, Central Ciircle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shrena S Sutaria, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 796/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 796/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.172/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Shrena S. Sutaria, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 8, Amrashagun Bunglows, Ahmedabad. Nr. Hathisingh Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Asqps7606E

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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with the contention of the appellant that the cash deposit in aggregate of Rs.1,83,07,500/- is out of the cash withdrawn from bank account which is duly explained by the appellant- The appellant also in support of the contention that mere cash deposits made in the bank account of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 appe…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria -HUF, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 795/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

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

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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 fSC)..Considering all the aforesaid facts, I am in agreement with the contention of the appellant that the cash deposit in aggregate of Rs.1,68,25,000/- is out of the cash withdrawn from bank account which is duly explained by the appellant. The appellant firm also in support of the contention that mere cash deposits made in the bank account of th…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Dharmen Marble & Stone, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 794/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…h stand recorded in the cash book and the availability of funds with the appellant firm is sufficient to meet the outflow of money deposited in the bank account. The appellant firm 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 firm that the cash deposit in aggregate of Rs 98.31.461/- is out of the cash withdrawn from bank account which is duly explained by the appellant firm. The appellant firm also in support of the contention that mere cash deposits made in the bank accoun…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle-12(1), Chennai vs. M.Sumathy, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 414/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा01 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम1। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.414/Chny/2020 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) ACIT Smt. M. Sumathy, बनाम/ Non Corporate Circle-12(1), No.14, Lalithapuram Street, Vs. Chennai. Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ABYPS-2902-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld.…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…ii) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) State Vs. Guljari Lal Tondon AIR 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharsinghji P. Jadera 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Salay 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 It is thus submitted that ld.AO has interpreted a dumb document having no legal validity as per his suitability and addition based on this paper deserves to be deleted more particularly when the paper itself contained errors and addition is made merely and so…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…o. vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 271. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal girdharilal v CIT, Bombay iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cooton Mills Ltd v CIT iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT The assessee has submitted a note on Moreover, even applying the rule of consistency, 3 “Presumptive” Taxation Scheme which are disallowance made is untenable. It is submitted that, essentially the provisions of Section 44AD once immediately preceding a…

Sri. B.M. Farook vs. DCIT

In the result, the cross appeals by the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 945/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri V. Chandrashekar, Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for the Dept

Section 292C

…ties and nature of linked material and evidence available before the AO. The proceedings before the income tax authorities have been described as quasi-judicial proceedings in character. More so, it was held in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, 26 ITR 775 (SC) that assessment proceedings are purely administrative and the assessing office is not a court. As such, strict rule of evidence is not applicable in the income tax proceedings and proceedings before him are not judicial proceedings, though they are deemed to be as such for limited ITA No.945 & 1025/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 14 purposes. The AO ha…

DCIT vs. Sri. B.M. Farooku

In the result, the cross appeals by the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1025/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri V. Chandrashekar, Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel for the Dept

Section 292C

…ties and nature of linked material and evidence available before the AO. The proceedings before the income tax authorities have been described as quasi-judicial proceedings in character. More so, it was held in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, 26 ITR 775 (SC) that assessment proceedings are purely administrative and the assessing office is not a court. As such, strict rule of evidence is not applicable in the income tax proceedings and proceedings before him are not judicial proceedings, though they are deemed to be as such for limited ITA No.945 & 1025/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 14 purposes. The AO ha…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी सुधांशु "ीवा"तव, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 310/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt Charu Aggarwal बनाम The DCIT H.No. 123-C, Model Town Central Circle Patiala-147001- Punjab Patiala-147001, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKPA9875F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी सुधांशु "ीवा"तव, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 310/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt Charu Aggarwal बनाम The DCIT H.No. 123-C, Model Town Central Circle Patiala-147001- Punjab Patiala-147001, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAKPA9875F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija

Section 10(38)

…STT have been paid. He thus placed reliance on following decisions on the legal issue submitted for the assessment to be quashed and set aside, as well as on merits.  decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision o…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija

Section 10(38)

…STT have been paid. He thus placed reliance on following decisions on the legal issue submitted for the assessment to be quashed and set aside, as well as on merits.  decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision o…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija

Section 10(38)

…STT have been paid. He thus placed reliance on following decisions on the legal issue submitted for the assessment to be quashed and set aside, as well as on merits.  decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision o…

Snehalatha Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija

Section 10(38)

…annual income tax returns Page 7 of 11 etc., in respect of alleged companies. For the above reasons, assessee cannot seek rescue on following decisions by the Ld.AR:  decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision o…

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment. 28 Shri Deepak Valji Karia Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Dhakeshwati Cotton Mills v. CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (ii). Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii). ACIT v. Shailest Shah [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (iv). Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 4. In any case, in view of SEBI Report, the very basis got away. All such material / statements -/ information have no base / relevance. Most importantly, even SEBI found…

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6309/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai

Section 132

…r reliance is placed upon:  Krishnand v. State of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1977 SC 796  Jayadayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra: AIR 1974 SC 171 • CIT v. K Mahitn (Jdrna[2000] 158 CTR (Ker.) 100:12000] 242 ITR 133 (Ker.)  Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) 15 ITA NOs. 6309/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Ashok R Ruia  Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) • Asstt. CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2008] 118 TTJ 228 [2008] 11 DTR (Delhi)(Trib.) 281.  Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal Vs. CIT 26 ITR 736  LalehandBhagatArnbika Rain Vs. CIT 37ITR288 12.29 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…due regard to the legitimate outgoings in the form of the entire purchases of gas cylinders ag not. The principle regarding making of a best judgment assessment has been well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. D. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows : - "As regards the second contention, toe are in entire agreement with the learned solicitor-General when he says that the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that, he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law,…

Rainbow Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 766/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, FCA &For Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 766/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 1745/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s Rainbow Promoters (P) Ltd., Vs ACIT, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Central Circle-23, Circus, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACR5368R ITA No. 1678/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ACIT, Vs M/s Rainbow Promoters (P) Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught New Delhi Circus, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT)…

M/S Rainbow Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1745/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, FCA &For Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 766/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 1745/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s Rainbow Promoters (P) Ltd., Vs ACIT, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Central Circle-23, Circus, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACR5368R ITA No. 1678/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ACIT, Vs M/s Rainbow Promoters (P) Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught New Delhi Circus, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT)…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rainbow Promoter (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, FCA &For Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 766/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 1745/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s Rainbow Promoters (P) Ltd., Vs ACIT, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Central Circle-23, Circus, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACR5368R ITA No. 1678/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ACIT, Vs M/s Rainbow Promoters (P) Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught New Delhi Circus, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT)…

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

The DCIT, Central Ciircle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shrena S Sutaria, Ahmedabad

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria -HUF, Ahmedabad

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Dharmen Marble & Stone, Ahmedabad

ACIT Non Corporate Circle-12(1), Chennai vs. M.Sumathy, Chennai

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

Sri. B.M. Farook vs. DCIT

DCIT vs. Sri. B.M. Farooku

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

Snehalatha Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

Rainbow Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S Rainbow Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rainbow Promoter (P) Ltd., New Delhi