What is Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot selectively accept parts of a statement or seized evidence that are favourable to the revenue while rejecting other parts favourable to the assessee without proper investigation; the evidence must be considered as a whole. Additions cannot be made based on mere presumptions or surmises without further inquiry.

How many judgments cite Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT?

150 judgments on BharatTax cite Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT (253 ITR 454), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69C, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 132, Section 44AD, Section 37(1).

Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT (253 ITR 454)

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, KAUTILYA BHWAN, MUMBAI vs. RUCHA CONSULTANCY LLP, PUNE

ITA 2846/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Section 132Section 250Section 69C

…a land\ntransaction, then the statement must also be held to be\n“correct” to the extent that the said transactions stood\n“cancelled” in this regard reliance is being placed upon the\ndecision in the case of Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd.\nv/s. CIT – (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj)]. Therefore, in that\nview of the matter, it was submitted there is no scope for\nmaking an addition in the hands of the assessee.\n28.8 Ld. AR also submitted that if the AO does not believe\nthe assessee, then the right course of action could have\nbeen made further investigation / enquiry by AO on the\nsaid whatsapp chats by confronting t…

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RUCHA CONSULTANCY LLP, PUNE

ITA 2721/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 250Section 69C

…a land\ntransaction, then the statement must also be held to be\n“correct” to the extent that the said transactions stood\n“cancelled” in this regard reliance is being placed upon the\ndecision in the case of Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd.\nv/s. CIT – (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj)]. Therefore, in that\nview of the matter, it was submitted there is no scope for\nmaking an addition in the hands of the assessee.\n28.8 Ld. AR also submitted that if the AO does not believe\nthe assessee, then the right course of action could have\nbeen made further investigation / enquiry by AO on the\nsaid whatsapp chats by confronting t…

DCIT CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC MUMBAI vs. RUCHA CONSULTANCY LLP, PUNE

ITA 2488/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 250Section 69C

…a land\ntransaction, then the statement must also be held to be\n“correct” to the extent that the said transactions stood\n“cancelled” in this regard reliance is being placed upon the\ndecision in the case of Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd.\nv/s. CIT – (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj)]. Therefore, in that\nview of the matter, it was submitted there is no scope for\nmaking an addition in the hands of the assessee.\n28.8 Ld. AR also submitted that if the AO does not believe\nthe assessee, then the right course of action could have\nbeen made further investigation / enquiry by AO on the\nsaid whatsapp chats by confronting t…

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 401/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…orted by an affidavit. Further Hon’ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. reported in 30 ITR 181\nhas held that “an un-controverted affidavit should be accepted as such”. Similarly,\nHon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Line Equipment 253 ITR 454 has\nheld that when affidavit was not controverted, it has to be taken as accepted. It is\ntherefore submitted that no credence can be given to statements of Sh.\nRam Singh Meena which stood retracted by him.\n10.\nThat ld. AO has not considered the contention of assessee that amount\nhas not been deposited by him in the bank account of Shri Ram…

MAYANKKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA BHATT,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1284/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Mayankkumar Rameschandra Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) Bhatt Vs. Vadodara. B/202, Laljikrupa Society B/H. Mothers School Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Agypb 2066 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2007–08, Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Dated 27.03.2015 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(4), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”].

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…idavit while confirming the addition in paragraph 8.2 of the impugned appellate order. 5.2 In support of the legal proposition, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Lines Equipment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2001) 253 ITR 454 (Guj)], wherein it was held that the revenue cannot challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent in the affidavit unless the deponent has been cross- 6 examined by the AO. In the present case, no such cross-examination was carried out and the affidavit remains uncontroverted. 5.3 It was further contended that the AO has acted…