How many judgments cite Homi Jhangir Gheesta v. CIT?

36 judgments on BharatTax cite Homi Jhangir Gheesta v. CIT (41 ITR 135), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Homi Jhangir Gheesta v. CIT

41 ITR 135Supreme Court of India1961#3282 most cited

What is Homi Jhangir Gheesta v. CIT authority for?

The Income Tax Officer can rely on material that may not be strictly admissible in a court of law as evidence, as long as it is relevant to the assessment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Homi Jhangir Gheesta v. CIT · 41 ITR 135 · SC · relevancy of material · admissibility of evidence · income tax assessment · tax officer powers · broader evidentiary scope

Issues it is cited on

abatement of assessment section 65b statement under section 132(4)retracted statement beneficial owner panchnama section 271(1)(b)section 153b child section 90 penalty u/s 271(1)(c)colourable device

Judgments citing Homi Jhangir Gheesta v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Vandana Ispat Limited, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 68

…ts & circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,59,00,000/-, thereby without considering and distinguishing the ratio of the judgment of the cases such as Rameshwar Prasad Bagla 68 ITR 653(Allahabad) & Homi Vs CIT 41 ITR 135, 142 by (Supreme Court) wherein it is stated that the totality of circumstances must be considered in a case of circumstantial evidence & the totality of the circumstances has to be taken into consideration and the combined effect of all those circumstances is determinative of the question as to whether or not a particular act is proved ?” 12. “Wh…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Bhagwati Industries, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 184/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.184/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bhagawati Industries Behind Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk4253H ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri G.S. Agarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 250(4)Section 69C

…nts of law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving a decision, thereby without considering and distinguishing the ratio of the judgment of the cases such as Rameshwar Prasad Bagla 68 ITR 653 (Allahabad) & Homi Vs CIT 41 ITR 135, 142 by (Supreme Court) wherein it is stated that the totality of circumstances must be considered in a case of circumstantial evidenced and the totality of the circumstances has to be taken into consideration and the combined effect of all those circumstances is determinative of the question as to whether or not a particular act is proved. 14. "W…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur vs. Mesers Balaji Rice Industries, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 181/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.181/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

…nts of law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving a decision, thereby without considering and distinguishing the ratio of the judgment of the cases such as Rameshwar Prasad Bagla 68 ITR 653(Allahabad) 85 Homi vs CIT 41 ITR 135, 142 by (Supreme Court) wherein it is stated that the totality of circumstances must be considered in a case of circumstantial evidence and the totality of the circumstances has to be taken into consideration and the combined effect of all those circumstances is determinative of the question as to whether or not a particular act is proved?" 12. "W…

Mesers Balaji Rice Industries, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 168/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

…nts of law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving a decision, thereby without considering and distinguishing the ratio of the judgment of the cases such as Rameshwar Prasad Bagla 68 ITR 653(Allahabad) 85 Homi vs CIT 41 ITR 135, 142 by (Supreme Court) wherein it is stated that the totality of circumstances must be considered in a case of circumstantial evidence and the totality of the circumstances has to be taken into consideration and the combined effect of all those circumstances is determinative of the question as to whether or not a particular act is proved?" 12. "W…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Subodh Singhania, Raipur

ITA 135/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…rom customers & M/s Tirthyatra Investment & 4 ACIT, Circle-1(1) Vs. Shri Subodh Singhania Properties Ltd, thereby without considering and distinguishing the ratio of the judgment of the cases such as Rameshwar Prasad Bagla 68 ITR 653(Allahabad) & Homi Vs CIT 41 ITR 135, 142 by (Supreme Court) wherein it is stated that the totality of circumstances must be considered in a case of circumstantial evidence & the totality of the circumstances has to be taken into consideration and the combined effect of all those circumstances is determinative of the question as to whether or not a particular Act is proved ?" 10."Whe…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…uttress the claim of purchases, held as under: "Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-firm. In the case of Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. CIT (1961] 41 ITR 135, the Apex Court held that while deciding on issue, the Tribunal can consider probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved and by doing so the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions. The Apex Court expressed a similar view in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995] 214 ITR 801 / 80 Taxman 89 (SC) and held…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Samanta Organics P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 to 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) DCIT-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/s. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCS2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR) Assessee by: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing:…

ITO 8 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhairav Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4126/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACB9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR) Assessee by: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of…

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…001) 250 ITR 575 (24) Indian Woolen Carpet Factory vs. ITAT (2002) 125 Taxman 763 (Raj.) (25) Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) 38 ACIT vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (2000) 74 ITD 92 (Mum). (27) Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (28) T. Devashaya Nadar vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad.) (29) R. S Dass vs. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 593. (30) Chairman, Board of Mining Examination vs. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965. (31) GTC Industries Ltd., vs ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 380 (Bom.). (32) SBI vs. S.K Sharma AIR 1996 SC 364 (33) Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) (34) Sanket Steel…

M/S. Aditya Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 232/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Aditya Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aahca 7223 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…lly contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) wherein it was held that :- 10. The question was again considered by this Court in Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. CIT [1981] 41 ITR 135, when this Court reiterated that it was not in all cases that by mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee, the character of a particular receipt as income could be said to have been established ; but where the circumstances of the rejection were such that the only proper inference was that the receipt must be treated as income in the hand…

DCIT, Hazaribagh vs. Sri Rajendra Lal, Hazaribagh

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 78/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Cross Objection No.05/Ran/2018 A.Y. : 2009-2010 Shri Rajendra Lal, Vs Acit, Circle-2, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Hazaribag Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) . & A.Y. : 2009-2010 Acit, Circle-2, Hazaribag Vs Shri Rajendra Lal, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) .

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Poddar & Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…And CO No.05/Ran/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Cross Objection No.05/Ran/2018 A.Y. : 2009-2010 Shri Rajendra lal, vs ACIT, Circle-2, Prop: M/s Alankar Jewellers Hazaribag Malviya Marg, Hazaribag PAN No. : AAQPL 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) . AND A.Y. : 2009-2010 ACIT, Circle-2, Hazaribag vs Shri Rajendra lal, Prop: M/s Alankar Jewellers Malviya Marg, Hazaribag PAN No. : AAQPL 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) . Assessee by :Shri S.K.Poddar & Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by :Shri A.K.Mohanty,…

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Babulal U Munot, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…buttress the claim of purchases, held as under: "Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assesses-firm, in the case of Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 135 , the Apex Court held that while deciding an issue, the Tribunal can consider probabilities property arising from the facts alleged or proved and by doing so the Tribunal does not indulge conjectures, surmises or suspicions. The Apex Court expressed a similar view in the case of Sumati Dayal v, CIT 14 A.Y.2010-11 F1995] 214 ITR 801 / SO Taxman 8…

Kaviraj Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…to better the claim of purchases, held as under: Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-firm. In the case of Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. CIT [19613 41 ITR 135, the Apex Court held that while deciding an issue, the Tribunal can consider probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved and by doing so the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions The Apex Court expressed a similar view in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 /80 Taxman 89 (SC) and held t…

M/S. Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2215/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Cc-3(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacck 5813 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…buttress the claim of purchase, held as under: “Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-firm. In the case of Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (SC) the apex Court held that while deciding an issue, the Tribunal can consider probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved and by doing so the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions. The apex Court expressed a similar view in the case of Summati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124 : (1995) 214 ITR…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Satish Kumar Chandna

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

ITA/142/2004HC Delhi21 Sept 2007

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

…evant for the block period 1st April, 1985 to 22nd February,1996. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Assessee has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Homi Jehangir Gheesta Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City, [1961] 41 ITR 135, to contend that the order passed by the Tribunal should not be examined sentence by sentence, through a microscope as it were, so as to discover a minor lapse here or an incautious opinion there to be used as a peg on which to hang an issue of law. 3. He has also drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in Mahavir Woollen Mills Vs.…