Dolphin Canpack (2006) 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd.

267 ITR 433High Court2004#5483 most cited

What is Dolphin Canpack (2006) 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd. authority for?

Evidence or material adduced by an assessee cannot be rejected by the Assessing Officer without conducting an enquiry into its particulars. The scope of this rule does not extend to situations where material implicates the assessee in a collusive arrangement.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dolphin Canpack · CIT v Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd. · Section 37(1) · Section 132(4) · Section 133(6) · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · Section 69A · Section 131(1A) · Section 153A · enquiry into creditors · rejection of evidence · material adduced by assessee · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69ASection 131(1A)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65(b)section 181section 194qsection 193section 65b(4)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 158b(b)section 65bsection 65

Judgments citing Dolphin Canpack (2006) 283 ITR 190, CIT v. Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/342/2011HC Delhi15 Feb 2012
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A

…nduct an enquiry into the particulars about the creditors furnished by the assessee, including their income-tax file numbers. In the same category fall cases decided by this court in Dolphin Canpack (2006) 283 ITR 190, CIT v Makhni and Tyagi P. Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 433, CIT v Antartica Investment P. Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 493 and CIT v Achal Investment Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211. To put it simply, in these cases the decision was based on the fundamental rule of law that evidence or material adduced by the assessee cannot be thrown out without any enquiry. The ratio does not extend beyond that. The boundaries of…