Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal v. CIT

26 ITR 726Supreme Court of India1954#20175 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 153ASection 69BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 132Section 132(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(1)warrant of authorisationsection 60section 52on money receiptfull value of considerationdumb documentssection 132(4a)section 69bsection 127on-moneychild

Judgments citing Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…m to support their suspicion. It is further respectfully submitted that no quasi-judicial order can be based on suspicion, surmises or conjecture, is supported by the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 726 (SC); (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC): (iii) Lalchand BhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC): It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid reasons and explanations, the values mentioned in the Table No. 1, cannot be taken as actual investment by…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…m to support their suspicion. It is further respectfully submitted that no quasi-judicial order can be based on suspicion, surmises or conjecture, is supported by the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 726 (SC); (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC): (iii) Lalchand BhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC): It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid reasons and explanations, the values mentioned in the Table No. 1, cannot be taken as actual investment by…

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…m to support their suspicion. It is further respectfully submitted that no quasi-judicial order can be based on suspicion, surmises or conjecture, is supported by the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 726 (SC); (ii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC): (iii) Lalchand BhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC): It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid reasons and explanations, the values mentioned in the Table No. 1, cannot be taken as actual investment by…

DCIT Cent. Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Soma Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1824/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(3)

…spicion however strong cannot take the place of proof as decided by the Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC), 8 ITA.NO.1824/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) C.O.No. 46/MUM/2022 Soma Enterprises Ltd., Dhirajipal Giridhari Vs CIT 26 ITR 726 (SC), Lalchand Bhagath Ambica Ram Vs CTT 37 ITR 288 (SC). (iv) We submit that all purchases were genuine, payments were made through banking channel, works wer completed by utilizing these materials, No evidence was found that cash was returned by these parties to the appellant 5.1 Bogus sub contract work (i) M/s Soma Enterprise Limited (in short…

Dhirajpal Girdhari Lal v. CIT (26 ITR 726) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax