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, New Delhi vs. Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2111/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ts. Various factors have also been mentioned by the Hon'ble Court which could be utilized for the purpose, one of which is the past tax history. The High Court relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) to state that a best judgement assessment cannot be made on pure guess work and without any reference to any material at all. Hence, going by the principle laid down, even while doing ex- parte assessment, the past history and other relevant details need to be seen. 6.7 It is a fact that the assessee has been allowed exemption under section 10(2…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders assumptions that the same is incurred in violation of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. It was stated relying on Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [26 ITR 736 (SC)] and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT [26 ITR 775 (SC)] that in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of violation of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, the expenditure could not be disallowed by the Ld.CIT(A) on mere assumptions. It was further argued that once it is established that the expenditure was actually incurred, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the same on the ground that the pr…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders assumptions that the same is incurred in violation of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. It was stated relying on Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [26 ITR 736 (SC)] and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT [26 ITR 775 (SC)] that in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of violation of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, the expenditure could not be disallowed by the Ld.CIT(A) on mere assumptions. It was further argued that once it is established that the expenditure was actually incurred, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the same on the ground that the pr…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 201/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…. The ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all, There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment or addition. [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954)26 ITR 775 (SC)). It is true that an apparent statement must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not the real, Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before e Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before t…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 200/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…. The ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all, There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment or addition. [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954)26 ITR 775 (SC)). It is true that an apparent statement must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not the real, Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before e Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before t…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 199/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…. The ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all, There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment or addition. [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954)26 ITR 775 (SC)). It is true that an apparent statement must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not the real, Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before e Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before t…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 198/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…. The ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all, There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment or addition. [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954)26 ITR 775 (SC)). It is true that an apparent statement must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not the real, Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before e Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before t…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 197/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…. The ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all, There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment or addition. [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954)26 ITR 775 (SC)). It is true that an apparent statement must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not the real, Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before e Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before t…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

…ition has been made by the AO merely on presumptions and surmises. Even this action is unsustainable in law since no addition can be made on presumptions. Dheeraj Lal Girdhari Lal vs. CIT - (1954) 26ITR 736 (SC), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Md. Sheikh vs. CIT- (1959) 37ITR 151 (SC), Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). The Respondent Assessee further submits that undisputedly in the present case the Assessment order was passed without providing the Assessee a copy of the information relied on by the AO which was gathered at the back of the Assesse…

Smt. Sarita Chawla, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 442/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…be verified'. Thus, the AO has not marked any specific vouchers of disallowable nature but summarily disallowed the large sum of money on the basis of untenable conjectures and sumrises. The case law supporting are: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 1954 26 ITR 775 SC In tax proceedings, addition has to be based on evidences. An addition cannot be made on a mere guess work, presumptions, conjuctures and surmises. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 288 (SC); Umacharan Shaw &Bros. Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt L…

Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla L/H Shri Prem Chawla, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 441/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…be verified'. Thus, the AO has not marked any specific vouchers of disallowable nature but summarily disallowed the large sum of money on the basis of untenable conjectures and sumrises. The case law supporting are: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 1954 26 ITR 775 SC In tax proceedings, addition has to be based on evidences. An addition cannot be made on a mere guess work, presumptions, conjuctures and surmises. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 288 (SC); Umacharan Shaw &Bros. Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt L…

The DCIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. Smt. Sudesh Chawla, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 405/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…be verified'. Thus, the AO has not marked any specific vouchers of disallowable nature but summarily disallowed the large sum of money on the basis of untenable conjectures and sumrises. The case law supporting are: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 1954 26 ITR 775 SC In tax proceedings, addition has to be based on evidences. An addition cannot be made on a mere guess work, presumptions, conjuctures and surmises. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 288 (SC); Umacharan Shaw &Bros. Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt L…

ITO, Ward 2(5), Kalyan vs. M/S Bharat Food Products, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2765/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 2(5) V. M/S. Bharat Food Products 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Bldg., Plot No. 02, Waco Compound Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada Industrial Area Kalyan (W), Kalyan Ulhasnagar - 421004 Mumbai - 421301 Pan: Aabfb1403H (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Amrita Singh

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 143(1)Section 147

…of DCIT v. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No.6727/M/2012 dt20/8/2014, Bench 'D' A.Y. 2009-10), Honourable Mumbai Tribunal has held: "that suspicion of highest degree cannot take place of evidence." (ii) In the case of: Dakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd, 26 ITR 775 (SC) and R. Y. Duriabji (211 ITR 178, Rajasthan) it was held that any assessment made on pure guess work de hors material on record is a bad assessment. (iii) In the case of Jagdamba Trading Company vs. Income Tax Officer IT AT, JODHPUR 'SMC' Bench (2007) 107 TTJ 0398 it was 5 M/s. Bharat Food Products held that merely on the basis of the depositi…

DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Rajendra Kumar Kedia, A-15, Shyam Nagar, Near Nadi Ka Phatak, Bainad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur

ITA 909/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) & The Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)

…hri Rajendra Kumar Kadia Reliance is also on the decision of Honible Rajasthan High Court in the case of DT Vs. R.Y. Durlabhji reported in 211-1TR-178 wherein at page 189, the Horn,le Court has observed as under: In Dhekeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Arnbica Ram V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), it has clearly been held by the apex court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment.…

The ITO, Sendhwa vs. Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, Sendhwa

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 334/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…a pure guess and the finding seem to be based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, there was no material for the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had made an unexplained investment of Rs. 50,000 outside the account books.-Dhakeswari Cotton Ltd. vs. CIT(1954) 26 ITR 775 (sq relied on." Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja reported in 302 ITR 63 has held that [ refer from premable] :- "In absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales) the finding of the Tribunal t…

Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, Sendhwa vs. The ITO, Khargon

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 284/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…a pure guess and the finding seem to be based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, there was no material for the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had made an unexplained investment of Rs. 50,000 outside the account books.-Dhakeswari Cotton Ltd. vs. CIT(1954) 26 ITR 775 (sq relied on." Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja reported in 302 ITR 63 has held that [ refer from premable] :- "In absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales) the finding of the Tribunal t…

Shri Balkrishna Purshottamdas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy, CIT, Circle - 11, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 985/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68Section 69

…he investment made by him including source thereof which is also recorded in the book of accounts and therefore provisions of Section 69 have no application in the present case. The appellant has relied upon the following decisions :- Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) Natu Ram PremchandVs.CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 206 Taxman 254 (Delhi HC) Audobindo Sanitary Stores Vs. CIT 276 ITR 549 (Ori) The appellant has also contended that out of total investment of Rs. 1,08,85,528/-, an amount of Rs.76 lakhs was made in earlier years and amount of Rs.32,82,5287- was made during the year. Out o…

M/S.Puthukaivayaningad Vairajathan Easwarante Kshethra Committe, Kasargode vs. The ITO, WD-2, Kasargode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 459/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.B.Sajjive, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144

…ings or the expenses though the learned AO recognizes the fact that there are office expenses and that there are interest outgoings. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 and in the case of Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT reported in 115 ITR 524. 4. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that substantial opportunities had been given to the assessee in the form of notice having been served. It was the submission that in response to the issue of the non- issuance of the show cause notice,…

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115J

…5IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Vs Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(1), 311, B-4/A, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACE9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: The above two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders…

M/S Gulmohar Developers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 867/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. PoddarFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

…ion and doubt. For this purpose, reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements 1. Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) 3. CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 4. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) 5. State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) 6. J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) Further more, I also observed that in the immediately preceding year the scrutiny assessment was framed and agricultural income so disclosed by the assessee was accepted by the Department at Rs. 31,27,010/- whereas during this year the…