Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT

26 ITR 736Supreme Court of India1954#485 most cited

What is Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT authority for?

Income tax additions cannot be made based on mere suspicion, surmises, or presumptions; the assessing officer must rely on concrete proof and material evidence. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.

193

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT · 26 ITR 736 · suspicion not proof · no addition on surmises · section 143(3) · section 153A · section 132(4) · evidence for assessment · onus of proof · incriminating material

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharesabatement of assessmentonus of proofsection 153a proceedingssection 158bdsection 158bbsection 269tthird party informationsection 269ssection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 271e

Judgments citing Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

…impugned intimation issued was arbitrary and erroneous. While making addition on that issue, it may be possible that the AO-PC was influenced by some irrelevant or nonexistent fact. The same was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC). 5.3 ADDITION PREMISED ON SUSPICION OR SURMISE: The Ld AO-CPC has failed to appreciate that surmises, conjecture and suspicion could not be a basis much less a valid basis in processing the income chargeable u/s 4. Therefore, the said action is not sustainable, as was held in Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy - ESTHURI ASW…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 17,25,00,000/- and deleted by the learned Comm…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 17,25,00,000/- and deleted by the learned Comm…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs. Rs. 17,25,00,000/- and deleted by the learned Comm…

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…hat no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following decisions: i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 52. Recently, the Hon’…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CC-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…d on 37 ITR 271 (SC) VmaCharan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v ClT, Bombay (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills ltd. v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) 37 Even otherwise, it is submitted that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…d on 37 ITR 271 (SC) VmaCharan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v ClT, Bombay (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills ltd. v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) 37 Even otherwise, it is submitted that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act…

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4295/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

…tia (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while considering the substantial question of law 8 Rakesh Kothotia, Mumbai. relating to invoking of section 153A of the Act has analysed the catena of judgments, more particularly, Smt. Dayawanti Gupta v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) and Kabul Chawla (supra), and thereby recorded a finding that the Tribunal was justified in holding that invoking of section 153A by the Revenue for the assessment years concerned therein was without any legal basis as there was no incriminating material qua each of those assessment years. 3. Further, in proceeding u/s. 153A of the Act, one s…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this Court. ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay When a Court of fact acts on material, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC…

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this Court. ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay When a Court of fact acts on material, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC…

FAUJDAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BHARATPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

ITA 560/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: SHRI DHEERAJ BORAD, C.AFor Respondent: MRS. ANITA RINESH, JCIT-DR
Section 145(3)

…he A.O. is not entitled to make a pure guess without any evidence or without any material. It further held that there must be something more than bare suspicion to support an assessment: a) Dhakeswari vs. CIT 26 (TR 775, 782(SC) b) DhirajlalGirdhariLalVs CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC) Assessment Years: 2018-19 c) CIT VsDaulatramRawat mull 87 ITR 349 (SC) d) Omar salay Mohammed vs CIT 37 ITR 1 5 1 (SC) CIT vs. Kameshwar I ITR 94, 106(PC) 10. Besides the appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon various judicial pronouncements in addition to what is mentioned above in these written submission and the list of such ju…

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. Vs. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: 1. 37 ITR 151 Omar Salay Mohammad Sait Vs. CIT 2. 26 ITR 736 Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT 3. 26 ITR 775 Dhakeshwari Cotton MillsLtd. Vs. CIT 4. 37 ITR 288 Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 5. 91 ITR 8 CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. It is further submitted that the expenditure being incurred in the day to day business activity and is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business for which…

ACIT, CIRCLE-49(1), NEW DELHI vs. PRADEEP PATIL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2671/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2671/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Acit Vs Pradeep Patil Circle-49(1) 306, Gold Plaza Building, Room No. 1505, E-2 Block, Gurudwara Road, Dr.Spm Civic Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Baipp4632G

Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 ITA No. 2671/Del/2022 ACIT Vs. Pradeep Patil IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [DELHI BENCH:“B” New Delhi] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2671/DEL/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) ACIT Vs Pradeep Patil Circle-49(1) 306, Gold Plaza Building, Room No. 1505, E-2 Block, Gurudwara Road, Dr.SPM Civic Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: BAIPP4632G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Ms. Mansi Jain, CA and Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement…

MUKESH JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ce or when the factual decision, in view of the fact on\nrecord, cannot be reasonably entertained. Finding based upon surmises,\nconjectures or suspicion or when they are not rationally possible have to be struck\ndown.\"\n\nDhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT(1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC)\n\"....if the court of fact, whose decision on a question of fact is final, arrives at this\ndecision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or by\nconsidering material which is partly relevant and partly irrelevant, or bases its\ndecision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions, and partly on evidence,\nthen in su…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1,, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATISGARH DISTILLERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 103/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Rpr/2020 Co No.15/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.103/RPR/2020 CO No.15/RPR/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited 6B, Express Tower, 42A Shakespeare Sarani, Theatre Road, Kolkata PAN: AAACS5073L ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.R Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. CIT…

SMT. PREMA MUKESH JHALANI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2) , THANE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…Rajasthan). 7. The Ld. A.O. is not empowered to make addition merely on mere presumptions and surmises, without making any independent enquiry. Such an addition based on presumptions or assumptions is unsustainable [Ref: Dhirajlal Girdharilal v/s CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s CIT- (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika v/s CIT- (1959) 37ITR 288 (SC)} 8. The appellant further humbly submits that in any case, section 56(2)(vii)(c) envisages taxing the fair market value of the movable property received without consideration. Firstly, natural love and affection is a valid conside…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JAGANNATHAN SEKAT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…this regard on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following decisions: on the following decisions: (i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga [1933] 1 ITR 94 (PC) CIT v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga [1933] 1 ITR 94 (PC) CIT v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of…

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…on. In this regard, it is further submitted that although the suspicion may be strong, however 70 Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT cannot take place of reality refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (261 ITR 775(SC), Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary Mohanmedsait Vs CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT Vs Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 3(iii) Further, the assessment order also undoubtedly speaks that no show cause notice for invoking the provision of section 115 BBE has been issued by the learned AO. As it is a settled le…

JATIN GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

…oth the acts are altogether different with different jurisdictions having different authorities. Hence, any assessment order not passed as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 is void and illegal. In this regard we rely on following judgments: - [1954) 26 ITR 736(SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax CRUX: "Whether when Tribunal acts on material, partly relevant and partly Irrelevant, it is Impossible to say to what extent its mind was affected by irrelevant material used by it In arriving at Its finding, and such a finding Is vitiated because of use of inadmissible…

RACHNA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2531/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on be liable to be set aside by this Court." The Hon’ble Supreme Court had previously so held in DhirajlalGirdharilal v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 as follows: "It is well established that when a court of fact acts on material, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material and thereby an issu…

Showing 1–20 of 193 · Page 1 of 10

...
Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT (26 ITR 736) — Cited in 193 Judgments | BharatTax