George Oommen v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax

52 ITR 977High Court1963#25195 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Judgments citing George Oommen v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax

DCIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad Through L/H Shri Dilnawaz & Mrs. Mehrunissa, Muzaffarnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA 3555/Del/2017 is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue in ITA 3754/Del/2017 is also partly allowed

ITA 3754/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz Income Tax, Circle-1, (Son) & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Vs Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad, Commissioner Of Through Legal Heir Shri Dilnawaz (Son) Income Tax, Circle-1 & Mrs. Mehrunissa (Spouse) Muzaffarnagar. 800/1, Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar Pan- Ahrpd 5860 D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

…6 ITA nos. 3555 & 3754/Del/2017 Late Shri Haji Mohd. Dilshad V ACIT Muzaffarnagar ii. CIT Vs. Amitbhar Gunwantbhai, (1981) 129 ITR 573, 580 (Guj.)). iii. Dunichand Dhani Ram Vs. CIT, AIR 1926 Lah 161-2 ITC 183. Also see, George Oummen Vs. C. Ag. LT., (1963) 52 ITR 977 (Cal.)]." iv. CIT Vs A.Raman & Co., (1968) 67 ITR 11, 17(SC). v. Md. Umer Vs.CIT, (1975) 101 ITR 525(Pat.)]. vi. R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) Vs. CIT, (1970) 75 ITR 33 (Bom.); vii. M. Durai Raj Vs. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker); Md. Umer Vs.CIT, (1975) 101 ITR 525(Pat.)]. viii. CST Vs. Vishnuchandra Vipin Chandra, (1982) 50 STC 345 (All…

D.C.I.T., Circle-5, Kolkata vs. M/S East India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

Section 143(3)

…ained unexplained. In our considered view the ld CIT(A) has given contrary finding with regard to the job charges, unaccounted purchase and sale of the goods. In this connection, we rely in the case of George Oommen Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax 52 ITR 977, where the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held as under :- “The accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected on mere suspicions, but only on positive evidence of their unreliability. The law does not permit the IT authorities to reject the accounts produced by an assessee as incorrect or unreliable unless there is some positive material to hold s…

M/S East India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 2432/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Chary

Section 143(3)

…ained unexplained. In our considered view the ld CIT(A) has given contrary finding with regard to the job charges, unaccounted purchase and sale of the goods. In this connection, we rely in the case of George Oommen Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax 52 ITR 977, where the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held as under :- “The accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected on mere suspicions, but only on positive evidence of their unreliability. The law does not permit the IT authorities to reject the accounts produced by an assessee as incorrect or unreliable unless there is some positive material to hold s…

George Oommen v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax (52 ITR 977) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax