(Natesan & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

51 ITR 386High Court#21016 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 115beproximate nexussection 91preponderance of probabilityviolation of natural justicecreditworthiness of the creditoraddition under section 68section 148a(d)section 115bbsection 115bsection 37(1)commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing (Natesan & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…Tribunal AIR 1957 SC 276). The mere ipse dixit of the Income Tax Authorities unrelated to the criteria laid down in the statute would not be considered opinion but a dogmatic assertion, which is impermissible under the statue (Natesan & Co. (P) Ltd. V/s. CIT 51 ITR 386 (Mad)). Thus the explanation as offered by an assessee about the nature and source of cash credit has to be considered without prejudice or bias. Any opinion, which is prima facie arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or is based on subjective consideration or irrelevant fact is no opinion in the eye of law and could be held so by the appellate autho…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…Tribunal AIR 1957 SC 276). The mere ipse dixit of the Income Tax Authorities unrelated to the criteria laid down in the statute would not be considered opinion but a dogmatic assertion, which is impermissible under the statue (Natesan & Co. (P) Ltd. V/s. CIT 51 ITR 386 (Mad)). Thus the explanation as offered by an assessee about the nature and source of cash credit has to be considered without prejudice or bias. Any opinion, which is prima facie arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or is based on subjective consideration or irrelevant fact is no opinion in the eye of law and could be held so by the appellate autho…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4866/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…Tribunal AIR 1957 SC 276). The mere ipse dixit of the Income Tax Authorities unrelated to the criteria laid down in the statute would not be considered opinion but a dogmatic assertion, which is impermissible under the statue (Natesan & Co. (P) Ltd. V/s. CIT 51 ITR 386 (Mad)). Thus the explanation as offered by an assessee about the nature and source of cash credit has to be considered without prejudice or bias. Any opinion, which is prima facie arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or is based on subjective consideration or irrelevant fact is no opinion in the eye of law and could be held so by the appellate autho…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…Tribunal AIR 1957 SC 276). The mere ipse dixit of the Income Tax Authorities unrelated to the criteria laid down in the statute would not be considered opinion but a dogmatic assertion, which is impermissible under the statue (Natesan & Co. (P) Ltd. V/s. CIT 51 ITR 386 (Mad)). Thus the explanation as offered by an assessee about the nature and source of cash credit has to be considered without prejudice or bias. Any opinion, which is prima facie arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or is based on subjective consideration or irrelevant fact is no opinion in the eye of law and could be held so by the appellate autho…

(Natesan & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (51 ITR 386) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax