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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4673/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…ts on record and find that the only reason, the Revenue authorities disallowed is the “increase” in expenses without any iota of evidence or cogent reason. Keeping in view, the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 26 ITR 775, Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs CIT (Guj.) 253 ITR 749 and DCIT Vs Haryana Oxygen Ltd. 76 ITD 32 (Del.), we hereby hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be legally sustained. 7. Ground No. 4 pertains to disallowance on account of legal and professional expenses. The Revenue disallowed the payment of Rs. 64,000/- made to R.N.…

M/S. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2081/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…ts on record and find that the only reason, the Revenue authorities disallowed is the “increase” in expenses without any iota of evidence or cogent reason. Keeping in view, the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 26 ITR 775, Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs CIT (Guj.) 253 ITR 749 and DCIT Vs Haryana Oxygen Ltd. 76 ITD 32 (Del.), we hereby hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be legally sustained. 7. Ground No. 4 pertains to disallowance on account of legal and professional expenses. The Revenue disallowed the payment of Rs. 64,000/- made to R.N.…