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 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 132 Section 68 Section 153C Section 153A Section 132(4)Section 115BBE Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)circular trading section 132(4a)dumb documents section 292c rejection of books of account loose papers section 145(3)documents seized section 34 section 145 on-money

Judgments citing Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

J.C.I.T RG - 3, Asansol vs. M/S Pawan Hardcoke Industries, Burdwan

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue on ground No

ITA 406/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.406/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Jcit, Range-3, Asansol Vs. M/S Pawan Hardcoke Parmar Building, 54, Industries, G.T.Road (West), Asansol- Bhukania House, Pera Galli, 713304 Kachari Road, Barakar, Burdwan "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfp 4056 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit-Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri T.P.Roy, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Durgapur In Appeal No.108/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-2/Asl/2010-11,Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 25.10.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Coke Both Hardcoke & Soft Coke. The Assessee Is Doing Business In The Name Of M/S Pawan Hardcoke Industries, Which Is A Partnership Firm Consisting Of Two Partners. The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making Addition On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Also Disallowed The Transportation Charges At Rs.12,85,223/- & Disallowed Some Expenditure Under Different Heads.

For Appellant: Shri T.P.Roy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…and there was no any logic for the estimated method adopted by the AO. Moreover addition made by the AO based on estimate without rejecting books of accounts are not tenable as the same has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills, 26 ITR 775 (SC). Considering the factual position, we are of the view that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference. Hence, we confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 6.4 In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue on ground No.2, is dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 relates to disallowance made by the AO at Rs.12,85,223/- on account…

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5448/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj0184N Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(viii)Section 4

…s never furnished thereby denying any opportunity to assail the same. The significance of the opportunity to examine has been well established in law. Here, one may usefully cite the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. C1T [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), wherein, the right of examination has been considered as an essential ingredient of reasonable opportunity to be afforded to an assessee. Furthermore, in the case of K.T. Shaduli vs State of Kerala (1972) [29 STC 44], the Hon'ble Kerala High Court reiterated the aforesaid view. Here it is relevant to highlight that the judgment of the Hon'bl…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Khayber Properties & Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4062/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito 8(2)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Khayber Properties &Investments Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Standard House, Near Safed Pulm, Sakinaka, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaack2217Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…s that the AO has carried out this addition merely on presumption, suspicion, guess work, conjectures and surmises and on failure to consider relevant material on record, which is legally not sustainable. Kindly refer to Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT - 26 ITR 775 (Supreme Court), Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT - 37 ITR 271 (Supreme Court). 2.3. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel and since, the appellant himself has duly disclosed in the books of account, the sum of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- - which has been clearly proved by the appellant - the A.O. is 'directed to delete this addition/disallowanc…

ACIT, Cir-52, Kolkata vs. M/S Balaji Export Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 591/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Venkatramani, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…that there is no material on record to prove that the purchases from M/s. Shibdoot Trexim Pvt. Ltd. were bogus hawala purchases and the appellant had indulged in inflating and manipulating the consumption figures. In Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC)Umarcharan Shaw & Bros. v CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC) and LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), it had 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…

Tirupati College of Technical Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur

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

ITA 452/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, (CIT)

Section 10Section 143(3)

…e Hon CIT (exemption) for utilisation of funds by the managing committee. An allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw v/s CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC). All the disallowances deserve deletion on this submission alone. 10.1 The assessee has some other reason to kept cash in hand. The assessee wants to purchase the land for further extension of educational institution and for that it entered into an agreement on dt. 11.04.2011 for purchase the land for…

Galaxy Impex, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the disallowance made

ITA 529/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Prithivi Raj Meena (Add. CIT)

Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 529/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke M/s Galaxy Impex, The DC.I.T., Vs. 45, Gem Enclave, Circle-6, Jaipur. Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABFG 9397 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shr…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jadau Jewellers & Mfg (P) Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR

Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…. It is also settled law that the AO must act honestly on the material before him and not vindictively, capriciously, or arbitrarily as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurumukh Singh Vs CIT 12 ITR 393, 427 (FB), Dakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775. The taxing authority should not act in a manner as might 33 M/s. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur indicate that scales are weighted against the assessee CIT Vs Simon Carves Ltd (1976) 105 ITR 212,218 (SC). But in our case, the ld AO has brushed aside all the principles of law and made the perverse fi…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…for the same can be placed on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: 1. Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 737 11. CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 111. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 3.9. In the backdrop of the above judgments, the assessee would like to submit that its case here stands clearly covered by the above mentioned decisions. 3.10. As such, it is being humbly prayed before Your Honours, that the disallowance of 5% of miscellaneous expenditure on an adhoc basis, may kindly be deleted. 4. Finally, it is urged most r…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1950/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5293/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

…nnot make any additions just on the basis of presumption. Suspicion, however strong cannot take place of proof. This principle is reflected in the following judicial principles: • Urnacharan Shaw& Bros v. GIT (37 ITR 271)(SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (26 ITR 775)(SC) • SheoNaralnDuli Chand v CIT (72 ITR 766)(AII.) The, whole case of the A.O. is built up, on appearance of certain purchase parties on the Website of Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and the appellant's failure to produce these parties before the AO. Department's effort to verify the genuineness of purchases in respect of seller party did not…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Manjula S. Shah, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7220/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

Section 133(6)Section 69C

…cases relied upon by the Revenue to be argued on different facts. Reliance was placed upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom.), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC), Hital Chunilal Jain & Ors. (2016) 46 CCH 0020(Mum.) and DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2014) 41 CCH 552 (Mum.). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for perusal and analy…

Sri Lalit Kumar Rupchandani, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-33(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 673/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Akash Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sk. Z. H. Tanveer, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A No.673/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Lalit Kr. Rupchandani Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-33(3), Kolkata (PAN: ADIPR8781L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 27.12.2016 Date of pronouncement: 20.01.2017 For the Appellant: Shri Akash Bansal, CA For the Respondent: Sk. Z. H. Tanveer, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Kolkata in appeal No. 1…

Manoj Singh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-51, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.455/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) Manoj Singh, Vs. Dcit, Cir-51/Kol, 47, B.T.Road, Uttarapan, Kolkata-700054 Khardah, 24 Pgs (N), Kolkata-700116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Altps 9206 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.N.Purohit, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arvindam Bhattacharya, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata, In Appeal No.252/Cit(A)-15/14-15/Cir-51/Kol, Dated 23.02.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,97,213/- Asessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act By Making The Addition On Account Of Remission Of Liability U/S.41(1) At Rs.9,00,690/-. The Assessee Runs A Transport Business Under The Name M/S Ma Kali The Name M/S Ma Kali Automobile. While Making The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V.N.Purohit, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvindam Bhattacharya, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…n although the onus in that regard was with him to do so. Furthermore, the entire addition is based on the surmise or conjecture that there was no actual payment of the amounts. The Supreme Court has further held in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. [26 ITR 775] that an income tax assessment cannot be based on any conjecture or surmise. 4.3. On the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue has reiterated the stand taken by the AO, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 4.4. Having heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, we are…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…es, 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 10 Smt. Kiran Navin Doshi 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…

Shri Sumit Saha, Kolkata vs. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee on this ground, is allowed

ITA 1569/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1569/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-2012) Sumit Saha, Vs. Ito-1(4) Hooghly, Presently 48/1, Old Nimta Road, Ito23(4), Chinsurah, Gt Kolkata-700058 Road, Hooghly-712101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ayyps 5395 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M.Roy,Fca Revenue By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, In Appeal No.254/Cit(A)-6/Kol/2014-15, Dated 29.06.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.07.2011 Declaring Net Income Of Rs.9,99,740/-. The Assessee Also Claimed Deduction U/S.24(B) Of The Act At Rs.1.50 Lakhs In Respect Of Interest Paid On Housing Loan. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition Of Rs.1.50 Lakhs On Account Of Interest On House Building Loan, Rs.9,52,347/- As Undisclosed Income & Rs.7918/- As Undisclosed Bank Interest.

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy,FCAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 24

…nt earlier. Further department wide order dated 22.01.2016 U/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2010-11 had not made any addition under same facts. The ld AR for the assessee also relied on the judgment in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills V. ClT 26 ITR 775 (SC) wherein it has been held that AO is not entitled to make a pure guess. Accordingly, the addition may be kindly deleted. 10. On the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the AO, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 11. Having heard the…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3604/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

…Construction Co. assessee's case that the purchases as recorded by the assessee in the books of accounts are genuine. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal reported at 26 ITR 775 (SC) The relevant para of the order is reproduced hereunder:- "we are in entire agreenei1 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 coon of law, hut there the agreem…

M/S Divakar Solar System Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…aw is very well settled as on date that no additions could be made on surmise and conjecture. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions :- (a) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT reported in 37 ITR 288 (SC) 4.5. In response to this, the ld DR argued that the work that is expected of Mrs Chandana Poddar is purely technical in nature which could not be rendered without possessing the requisite technical qualifications. Hence, in the…

Sri Kiran Bhagat, Uttar Dinajpur vs. JCIT, R-2, Jalpaiguri

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, ( on all the grounds), is

ITA 1325/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Nov 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1325/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-2012) Sri Kiran Bhagat, Vs. Jcit, Range-2, Jalpaiguri Prop. Bishal Enterprise, Dist- Uttar Dinajpur, Pin-733 202 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajepb 1680 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G.Hukunga, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalpaiguri In Appeal No.02/Jal/Cit(A)/Jal/2014-15, Dated 28.04.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 17.02.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 30.02.2012 Showing Total Income At Rs.3,60,240/- . The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment After Making Addition Of Rs.5,12,186/- On Account Of Bogus Expenditure ( Discount Allowed By The Assessee Was Treated By The Ao As Bogus Expenditure). During The Course Of Hearing While Verifying The Claim Of Expenditure In The Profit & Loss Account Of Expenditure Of Rs.14,22,455/- Under The Head “Discount”. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hukunga, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…idence Act do not apply to income-tax proceedings, assessments cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 and a host of Supreme Court and High Court's judgments thereafter on the subject. We, therefore, direct deletion of the sum of Rs. 17,00,892 assessed by the Assessing Officer by way of half share of the assessee in the alleged earnest money.” ii) Sigma Paints Ltd., 188 ITR 6 : “The Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 37(1) in respec…

Suprita Sachin Vaishampayan, Thane vs. ITO 3(3), Thane

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7173/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Captain Pradeep Arya

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…istinguishable from the facts of the present case therefore, the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable in the present case. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs CIT 26 ITR 775(SC) and decisions rendered by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs Kumar Metal Industries (1991) 36 ITD 261 (Mum) and the Agra Bench in ITO Vs Laxman Dass Makhija[2009]116 ITD 47(AGRA) to substantiate his contentions. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the assessee has discharged the onus of explaining the nature and source of the…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…erefore, the assessment made under section 143(3) raising the gross profit rate abnormally high @ 82% is pure guess work and is based on suspicion. Our view gets support from the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 . In this case the Supreme Court has observed at page 782 as under: ". . . it is equally clear that in making the assessment under sub- section 3 of section 143 of the, Act, the Income-tax Officer 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…