How many judgments cite Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT?

196 judgments on BharatTax cite Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT (26 ITR 736), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 142(1), Section 147.

Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT

26 ITR 736Supreme Court of India1954#474 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.

196

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,469 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 153A Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

buyback of shares abatement of assessment onus of proof section 153a proceedings section 158bd section 158bb section 269t third party information section 269s section 132(4a)dumb documents section 271e

Judgments citing Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT

M/S. Apex Realities, Indore vs. The ITO 3(2), Indore

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

ITA 899/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…atio laid down in the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. vs CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) 2. K.P. Varghese vs ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) 3. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) 4. Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 13. In view of the above facts in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge his onus and simply on guess work, presumption and suspicion, the addition in this regard had been made. The allegations of the Assessing Officer were merely 20 Apex Realities ITA No.89…

DCIT Central 2, Indore vs. M/S Gautamswami Enterprises, Indore

ITA 805/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2012-13

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess Work. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in Ihe case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v /s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 6.5 Without prejudice to the above, the differential amount between value as per registered purchase deed vis-a-vis guideline value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority is not taxable under any Provision of the Act as applicable "deeming ficition" enshrined u/s 50C of the Act in the case of sellers. Thus, differential amount per se cann…

The A C I T Central-II, Bhopal vs. S V Infra Developers, Bhopal

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.7.3 In view of the above judicial pronouncement, the AO was not justified in making addition on estimate basis and also when no corroborative evidence was found suggesting unaccounted investment in purchase of watches. Thus" the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4286 & 4474/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) DCIT, CC-8(1) बिधम/ M/s. Jainam Investments 11A, 5th Floor, Rockside Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Apartment, A Wing, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFJ1230A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Rahul Raman (DR) Assessee by: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 16/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /D…

The ACIT (Central)-1, Indore vs. Dilip Kumar Mahendra Kumar Jain HUF, Indore

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 809/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…nd guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros Co. v/s Cl'T 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (Se). Also, once the assessee has discharged its onus of proving that the parties under consideration are genuine, now the ball lies in the court of AO to prove that the claim of appellant is false. 4.2.5 Nevertheless, no independent enquiry was carried out by the AO either from the concerned lender/borrower or from the banks whose names are ment…

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)

…lowance merely on surmises, conjectures and 24 ITA NO.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)…

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

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan

Section 36(1)(iii)

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

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6301/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) DCIT, Central Circle-6(3) Shri Manoj M. Desai Vs. Room No. 1926, 19th 204, Sahyadri Floor, Air India Building Neelkanth Vally Nariman Point Complex, 7th Road Mumbai-400 021. Rajawadi Mumbai-400 077. PAN : ABBPD2066K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nishit Gandhi Department by Shri Deepakant Prasad Date of Hearing 29.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 07.12.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of Lea…

Mr. Late Smt. Vineeta Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1791/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2020AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

…esumption that there is a general tendency of near and dear ones to sympathise and come forward in times of crises; whereas there is no such presumption. 15. Referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhirajlal Girdharlal vs. CIT, 26 ITR 736 (SC) and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait, 37 ITR 51, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decisions has held that any order is vitiated in law where such an order is arrived partly on relevant material and partly on irrelevant material. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee had explained the source of the sums found in cash the d…

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…

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…” 14. Accordingly, it is submitted that the inference drawn by Ld. AO is purely based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and does not have sanction of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases as under – a. Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) b. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) d. Umacharan Shaw& Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) e. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] 15. Attention is also invited to the judgment in the case of Centr…

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Grandiose Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4Th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaagca5371D अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By Shri Rahul Raman, Cit Dr : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2020

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील िं./ ITA No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/s Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAAGCA5371D अपीलार्थी की ओ…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…Officer. Case Laws on which assessee has relied on Cash Credit 1. CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd (1967) 63 ITR 449 (SC) Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. ITO 2. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 782 (SC)t 3 DhirajilalGirdharilal v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4. M/s Straptex (India) Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax reported in 84 ITD 320 by the IT AT, Bombay 5. Mohd. SocbllajimoosaTumbi v. ITO (2009) 26 DTR 329 (Ahd- Trib) 6. Panchal Associates v. ITO (1989) 43 Taxman 295 (Ahd-Trib) (Tax- Mag). 7. VishnulalKarwa v. ITO (1987) 32 Taxman 276 (Jp-Trib) (Tax- Mag). 8. ITO v. Kaka Iron St…

DCIT Circle 1(1), Gwalior vs. Swastik Roadlines P Ltd, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 146/AGR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 201(1)Section 40

…tune of Rs.1 Crore simply on the basis of surmises, conjutures and on suspicion basis. It has been held in the case of Ashokpal Daga (HUF) v/s CIT by MP High Court dated 12.01.1996 (MP HC) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal v/s CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC) holding that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. In view of above discussion, I find that adhoc disallowance of Rs.1 Crore out of depreciation claimed by the assessee has no proper basis and disallowance was made in arbitrary manner without bringing any positive evidence on record. On the other hand, the appellant by furnishi…

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…seized during the course of the search at Airport is part of accounted stock in trade. 17. The addition is made on totally irrelevant and immaterial considerations. It is settled judicial position laid down by the Supreme Court in DhirajlalGirdharilal v. CIT 26 ITR 736 which was applied by Patna High Court in SurajmalChampalal v. CIT 66 ITR 396 where the court held : "If an estimate is based on partly irrelevant material and partly on relevant material, it is difficult to sustain the estimate because it cannot be said to what extent and which part of the figure of estimate was dependent upon the irrelevant porti…

DCIT 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Mahesh Banasal, Indore

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue and Assessee

ITA 499/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh Bansal, Income Tax 5(1), 44, Manish Bagh, Indore Agrawal Nagar, Indore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…r (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del), g) ITO Vs. R.L. Narang (Dr.) (2008) 174 Taxmann 96 (Chandigarh) Smt. Neena Syal Vs. ACrT (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chd.) h) 4.3 The judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1D the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs, CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs, CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); 11 Mahesh Bansal ITA No.499/2018 & C.O.No.10/Ind/2019 Umacharan Shaw& Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) & Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs, CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) also applies to the facts and circumstances of the case bec…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) ii) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT 37 ITR 151(SC) iii) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay 26 ITR 736 (SC) iv) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Krishnand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 796 vi) Jayadayal Poddar vs. Mst Bibi Hazra AIR 1974 SC 171 vii) CIT vs. K. Mahim Udma 242 ITR 133 (Ker) 39. It is therefore submitted that the addition made by the learned AO and sustainable by the learned CIT (A) in respect of unsecur…

Shri Gulbahar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Dasuya

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 335/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 335/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)

…ard which reference may be made to some of its’ decisions, viz. CIT v. Radha Kishan Nandlal [1975] 99 ITR 143 (SC); CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC); Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC); Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC)). The same, accordingly, provides the frame-work under 3 Gulbahar Singh v. ITO which the question arising for determination – a matter of fact, is to be addressed and decided. The assessee’s case that the fair market value (fmv) is generally more than the stamp valuation, i.e., under the Stamp Act, so that the latter could not be assumed to…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 715/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…parties, AO cannot treat the unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits. This contention is supported by the following decisions :- • CIT Vs. Daulatram Ravatmal 87 ITR 349 (S.C) ITA No.1991/Ahd/2016 and 715/Ahd/2017 21 • Dhirajlal Girdharlal Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) • Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj) • CIT Vs. Pragati Co-operative Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 [Guj) (c) Even 'source of the source' has been explained: It is settled law that addition u/s. 68 of the Act cannot be made if source of source is not explained. Law is very clear that assessee is not required to prove the 'source of source' o…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 1991/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I