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 367,154 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

Tadii China Venkata Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 180/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…the assessee has paid the consideration over and above the sale consideration, there is no case for making any addition representing unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 held that the A.O. is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or material and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment, otherwise the same would be void in law. Similarly, it is held that unless otherwise, there is an evidence to ITA Nos.178-189/VIZ/2017 (Kovvuri Ad…

Kovvuri Adl Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 179/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…the assessee has paid the consideration over and above the sale consideration, there is no case for making any addition representing unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 held that the A.O. is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or material and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment, otherwise the same would be void in law. Similarly, it is held that unless otherwise, there is an evidence to ITA Nos.178-189/VIZ/2017 (Kovvuri Ad…

Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 178/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…the assessee has paid the consideration over and above the sale consideration, there is no case for making any addition representing unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 held that the A.O. is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or material and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment, otherwise the same would be void in law. Similarly, it is held that unless otherwise, there is an evidence to ITA Nos.178-189/VIZ/2017 (Kovvuri Ad…

Sabbella Venkata Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 189/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…the assessee has paid the consideration over and above the sale consideration, there is no case for making any addition representing unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 held that the A.O. is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or material and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment, otherwise the same would be void in law. Similarly, it is held that unless otherwise, there is an evidence to ITA Nos.178-189/VIZ/2017 (Kovvuri Ad…

Sathi Rama Krishna Reddy vs. The Dy. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in appeal No

ITA 188/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble1. Sathi Suryanarayana Reddy Dcit, Kutukuluru Village Vs. Central Circle-1 East Godavari Dist. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Aqsps0318M 2. Kovvuri Adi Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 59-19-12, Jagannathpuram, Central Circle-1, Kakinada Basti, E.G. District. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Akypa 7366 B 3. Tadi China Venkata Reddy Vs. Dcit, Anaparthi Village, Central Circle-1 East Godavari District. Visakhapatnam Pan No.Alqpt 6801 P 4. Kovvuri Vijaya Suhdhara Reddy, Vs. Dcit, D.No. 6-64, Kondukuru Central Circle-1 Village,Bikkavolumandal, Visakhapatnam East Godavari Dist. Pan No. Btxpk 4927 K

Section 132Section 148

…the assessee has paid the consideration over and above the sale consideration, there is no case for making any addition representing unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 held that the A.O. is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or material and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment, otherwise the same would be void in law. Similarly, it is held that unless otherwise, there is an evidence to ITA Nos.178-189/VIZ/2017 (Kovvuri Ad…

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Babulal U Munot, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…n due regard to the legitimate outgoings in the form of (he entire purchases of gas cylinders or 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. v. 017119541 26 ITR 775 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows.— 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 maternal which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law, but the…

DCIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Trimurthi Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5052/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…& K), An assessment based on mere conjecture, surmise or suspicion or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material is invalid and unsustainable in law vide Dhirajlal Girdharial vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Dhakeslnvari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lalchand Bhagar Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 2S8 (SC); Umarchand Shah Bros. vs.CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC); Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (5C). 6.14 In making an assessment u/s. 143(3), the Assessing Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at…

DCIT, Cir-22, Kolkata vs. Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 650/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 650/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Cir 22 Kolkata..............................…………………………......................................Appellant 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria...................…………………………………………….........Respondent 87, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan: Ajxpk 5793 Q] Appearances By: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 24.01.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs. 45,02,635/- Imposed By The A.O. Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Film Exhibition, Investments & Trading In Shares & Running A Service Centre. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs. 2,09,71,354/-. In The Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 30.03.2015, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The A.O. At A Loss Of Rs. 56,76,140/- After Making Additions Of Rs. 33,96,435/- & Rs. 1,16,91,865/- On Account Of 2 I.T.A. No. 650/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dilip Chand Kankaria

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…the appellant has furnished all necessary evidence in support of genuineness of the brokerage. The A.O. has disallowed the commission only on the basis of suspicion and as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. The appellant has convincingly contended that he had no motive to minimise profit as he had incurred loss. Hence, the suspicion also is not well founded. Hence, respect…

Kartikeyas Manganese & Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 832/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…relies on the following case laws: On the issue of assessment made based on third party statements: PCIT vs Saumya Construction P Ltd - 387 ITR 529 - GUJ HC CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd - 288 ITR 345 - Delhi HC suspicion: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT - 26 ITR 775 – SC (CLPB page 155/156) A.S.Sivan Pillai vs CIT - 34 ITR 328 - Madras HC(CLPB page 162/163) On the issue that admission is not conclusive and has no evidentiary value: Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr - 91 ITR 18 - Supreme Court (CLPB page 189/190) CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Son - 352 ITR 480 – SC (CLPB page 336) CBDT Instru…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…make any addition just on the basis of presumption. Suspicion, however strong cannot take place of proof. This principle is reflected in the following judicial pronouncements;  Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT (37 ITR 271) (SC)  Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT (26 ITR 775) (SC)  SbeoNarainDuli Chand v. CIT (72 ITR 766) (All.)  6.3.4. It has been explained by the appellant that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had requested the AO to give them copies of all the materials/ information/evidences, on the basis of which the AO has formed his opinion to make disallowance of above referred purchases. Howe…

Rajesh Agashe, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 634/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Kirit ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 133A

…pellant has also admitted that no salary/bonus register was maintained by him. In the circumstances, the claim of the appellant to retract the statement was rejected by the A.O. relying on the decision in the case of M/s Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. C1T (26 ITR 775, 782 (SC)) and Shri Vasant Lal & Co. Vs. CIT (45 ITR 206, 209 (SC)). Accordingly, the amount of Rs.27,40,000 being additional income in respect of unaccounted cash received from students, a sum of Rs 10,00,000 being unexplained payments to teachers and a sum of Rs 7,50,000 being unexplained investment in furniture & fixtures was added to the incom…

ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Anchor Residency P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4407/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…rahmaputra Capital & Financial Services Ltd. - [(2008) 9 DTR (Del) (Trib) 511] 4. Jt. CIT v/s. Pankaj Oxygen Ltd. [(2003) 78 TTJ (Nag) 119] V NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION OR WITHOUT ADEQUATE MATERIAL 1. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s. CIT- [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] "The Income Tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and makes an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3)." 2. CIT v/s. British Paints India Ltd. - [(1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC)] "What is the profit of trade or busine…

M/S. Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5955/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O Gh – 9/5, Paschim Vihar Ward 18(1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aatpa 0581 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

…trict rule of evidence are not applicable to the income tax proceedings but at the same time it does not mean that no evidences are required. It may be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) where the Hon’ble Court has held 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,…

Essa I Merchant, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 17(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1592/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…r held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof : (a) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC). (b) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1951] 26 ITR 736 (SC). (c) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). (d) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). 9.6 In light of the above facts, we hold that, appellant has duly established that services were rendered by M/s. Aswad Steels & Alloys (P.) Ltd. and, hence, is eligible for claim of deduction of Rs. 37.5 lakhs. 10. Now coming to the payment of commission paid to M/s. Shakumbhari…

Ess Ismail Merchant, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3618/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…r held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof : (a) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC). (b) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1951] 26 ITR 736 (SC). (c) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). (d) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). 9.6 In light of the above facts, we hold that, appellant has duly established that services were rendered by M/s. Aswad Steels & Alloys (P.) Ltd. and, hence, is eligible for claim of deduction of Rs. 37.5 lakhs. 10. Now coming to the payment of commission paid to M/s. Shakumbhari…

Kaviraj Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…o be 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 vs meant by saying that Evidence Act did not They were entitled to took in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 2.5.5 In yet another case of casting of onus viz. Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal Vs.CIT 130 ITR 244(SC), Ho…

Bajrang Singh Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1013/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244A

…ion/ assessment of the alleged income, it is for the AO to have proved beyond all reasonable 11 Shri Bajrang Singh Choudhary vs. ITO, Ward- 7(2), Jaipur . doubts which is completely missing as has been held in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (1975) 26 ITR 775 (SC). 4. The AO completely ignored the settled law that u/s 68, 69 etc. only a discretion has been conferred upon the AO to be exercised judiciously but he is not always obliged to make the addition if the explanation is not found satisfactory. Kindly refer CIT v/s P. K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). B. Shri Jagdish Singh Chaudhary 5.1 Not…

ITO, WD-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tikmani Metal (P) Ltd. (Now Vsp Steel (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 741/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 741/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Vsp Steel (P) Ltd. (Formerly Tikmani Metal (P) Ltd.) [Pan: Aacct 2881 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.H. Seena, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…P) Ltd.(Formerly M/s Tikmani Metal (P) Ltd.) A.Yr.2010-11 and appraisal of the evidences and documents filed before him. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 (SC) wherein it has been held that no addition can be made without material and on mere suspicion. 7.1. In these facts and circumstances, there is no need to treat the receipt of share application money from five share applicants as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accor…

The Dy. CIT-1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S. Saumya Mining Ltd., Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 150/BIL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 14ASection 194C

…oc disallowance out of material purchased and out of earth transporting charges, held that, since the expenses under these heads were incurred for the 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. 16. In the case of the appellant, under consideration, since the reasonableness of the GP and NP was not disputed by the AO, the genuineness and quantum of the expenses, contradictory to his own decision in not disturbing the book results. Since…

Shri Om Prakash Phatandas Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 1(2), Indore

In the result Ground No. 1 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

ITA 968/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed upon relevant information and evidences. An addition sustained only on the basis of conjectures and surmises is vitiated and deserves to be deleted. This view has been fortified by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (26 ITR 775 (SC)] relevant paragraphs are reproduced for sake of convenience to your honours:- “As regards the second contention, although ITO 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 ends; because it is equally cle…