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

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…y (2008) 296ITR 619 (Delhi) e. Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 75 Delhi f. Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ (Del) 665 g. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. ITO 1976 CTR (All) 6 h. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 SC i. CIT vs. Ravi Kant Jain (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 566 j. CIT vs. P V Kalyan Sundram (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) 449 k. CIT vs. Kailash Chand Sharma (2005) 198 CTR (Raj) 201 l. S.R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 No addition on the basis of presumption (a) That in the case of appellant, there is neither any direct evidence for the receipt of Rs…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…y (2008) 296ITR 619 (Delhi) e. Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 75 Delhi f. Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ (Del) 665 g. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. ITO 1976 CTR (All) 6 h. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 SC i. CIT vs. Ravi Kant Jain (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 566 j. CIT vs. P V Kalyan Sundram (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) 449 k. CIT vs. Kailash Chand Sharma (2005) 198 CTR (Raj) 201 l. S.R. Koshti vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Guj) 518 No addition on the basis of presumption (a) That in the case of appellant, there is neither any direct evidence for the receipt of Rs…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Ganesh Plantations Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah alongwithFor Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…tain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and-could not relied upon and made the basis of addition. 31. In the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 the ruling given in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been relied upon wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held " even though Income Tax Authorities including the Assessing Officer has unfettered discretion and not strictly bound by the rules and pleadings as well as materials on record and is legitimately entitled to act on the material which may not be accepted as…

Ganesh Plantations Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2200/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah alongwithFor Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…tain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and-could not relied upon and made the basis of addition. 31. In the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 the ruling given in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been relied upon wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held " even though Income Tax Authorities including the Assessing Officer has unfettered discretion and not strictly bound by the rules and pleadings as well as materials on record and is legitimately entitled to act on the material which may not be accepted as…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Samanta Organics P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…e ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuharmal (supra) held that what was meant by saying that Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under Income-tax Act,1961, was that the rigours of Rules of evidence, contained in the Evidence Act was not applicable; but that did not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous of invoking t…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…1 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्याययक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF) DCIT-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…1 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्याययक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF) DCIT-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…1 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्याययक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF) DCIT-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…1 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्याययक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF) DCIT-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…1 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्याययक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF) DCIT-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel…

The A C I T Central-II, Bhopal vs. S V Infra Developers, Bhopal

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…fra Developers IT(SS)A No.182/Ind/2019,ITA No.657/Ind/2019 bare guess, but on a legitimate material from which a reasonable inference of any unexplained cash credit can be made. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT (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 Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed…

DCIT - CC - 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Balkrishan Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3967/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahendra B Mittal Income Tax, A-403, Meghdoot Apartment Central Circle 8 (1) Raheja Township, Malad(E) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aebpm1654H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Shri Mahendra B Mittal Income Tax, A-403, Meghdoot Apartment Central Circle 8 (1) Raheja Township, Malad(E) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 097 PAN/GIR No. AEBPM1654H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Sajit V. Nair Assessee by Shri Madhur Agrawal Date of Hearing 20/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement 08/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against the impugned order dated 28/03/2019, passed by the CIT(…

ITO 8 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhairav Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4126/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 148

…e ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954] 26 ITR 775. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuharmal (supra) held that what was meant by saying that Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under Income-tax Act11961, was that the rigours of Rules of evidence, contained in the Evidence Act was not applicable; but that did not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous of invoking t…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…rities were desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so." ITA. Nos.4286 & 4474/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2016-17 17.8 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT {1954] 26 ITR 775 at 782 observed as under: "As regards the second contention, we 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, but there the agreement…

Shri Hasmukhlal Inderchand Ranawat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3279/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3279/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Hasmukhlal Inderchand Ranawat Income Tax Officer-18(1)(4) बनाम/ Room No.203, 2Nd Floor 32/33, Dagina Bazar Mumbadvi Road, Mumbadevi Earnest House, Ncpa Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpr-2925-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande-Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…cquisition and sale of shares and the transactions were genuine transactions. To disregard the same, there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. In the said background, the additions so made by Ld. AO were vehemently contested. 5.2 However, the said arguments could not convince Ld. CIT(A) who chose to confirm the action of Ld. A…

M/S. Pushpa Navratan Ranawat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5461/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5461/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ms. Pushpa Navratan Ranawat Income Tax Officer-18(2)(5) बनाम/ Room No.306, 3Rd Floor 32/33, Dagina Bazar Mumbadvi Road, Mumbadevi Earnest House, Ncpa Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpr-3149-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 16/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande-Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…cquisition and sale of shares and the transactions were genuine transactions. To disregard the same, there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. In the said background, the additions so made by Ld. AO were vehemently contested. 5.2 However, the said arguments could not convince Ld. CIT(A) who chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO…

The ACIT (Central)-1, Indore vs. Dilip Kumar Mahendra Kumar Jain HUF, Indore

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 809/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…any particular year cannot be based on mere suspicion or bare guess, but on a, legitimate material from which a reasonable inference of any unexplained cash credit can be made. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills-Ltd. v/s CIT (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 Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. v/s Cl'T 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expresse…

Smt. Chhaya Hasmukhlal Ranawat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3278/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande-Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…cquisition and sale of shares and the transactions were genuine transactions. To disregard the same, there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. In the said background, the additions so made by Ld. AO were vehemently contested. 5.2 However, the said arguments could not convince Ld. CIT(A) who chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO…

ITO 5 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Karteek Ferromet Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1461/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…essment the ITO is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence, the ITO may act on material which may not, strictly speaking, be accepted as evidence in Indian Evidence Act in Court of Law as held in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) and it is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry.[C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) &Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. Income Tax Officer &Ors. (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj)]. 8.5 As discussed earlier, information was received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of the bogus purchases made by…

ITO 5 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Karteek Ferromet Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1460/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…essment the ITO is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence, the ITO may act on material which may not, strictly speaking, be accepted as evidence in Indian Evidence Act in Court of Law as held in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) and it is open to him to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry.[C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) &Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. Income Tax Officer &Ors. (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj)]. 8.5 As discussed earlier, information was received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of the bogus purchases made by…