What is Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT authority for?

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be made based solely on suspicion, surmises, or conjectures. The income tax department requires evidence or material to justify an addition, as suspicion, however strong, does not constitute proof.

How many judgments cite Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT?

372 judgments on BharatTax cite Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT (37 ITR 151), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132(4), Section 132, Section 147, Section 148, Section 153A.

Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT (37 ITR 151)

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KALAWATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING P LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…sessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly…

HOME CONSTRUCTION CO, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 615/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 271A

…ed to any specific flat or transaction, does not constitute incriminating material and cannot be the sole basis for addition, as it amounts to surmise and conjecture. This view is supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), which prohibit additions based purely on suspicion without reference to evidence. 4.3 With respect to Flat A-1 sold to Karan Kochhar & Pia Wig and Flat D-1 sold to Vishal Sra, the CIT(A) upheld the additions of Rs.22,00,000/- and 4 Rs.95,00,000/- respectively. These additions we…

THE DAKSHIN DINAJPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,BALURGHAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3,, MALDA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2187/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

…n our opinion, the disallowance cannot be made on estimation and presumption basis as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)vide order dated 12-09-1972 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) dated 05-03-1959. Consequently, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. 4. The second issue raised in ground nos. 3 and 4 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the disallowance of ₹2,72,91,922/- as disallowed by the ld. AO in respect of provisions made against the non-performing assets und…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)

…316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)

…316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)

…316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. 45 In view of the aforesaid addition made of Rs…

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…4) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 52. Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that no addition can be made taking into account notorious practice prevalent in the similar trade. The rel…

MRS. JIGNA HIREN RAMBHIA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5033/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 391Section 68

…DL were under control or influence of the assessee, Broker or the Company whose shares have been purchased by the assessee. 10. And in this regard also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 wherein it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of ITA No. 5033/Mum/2025; Jigna Hiren Rambhia, Mumbai surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT (Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party…

OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRE CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 49/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

…on was applied by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Anupam Kapoor (166 Taxman 178). The impugned addition was merely on conjecture and surmises and without any findings of fact against the 15 assessee. In the case of Omay Salay Mohammed Sait (37 ITR 151), it was held that additions on the basis of conjectures, suspicion and surmises would not be sustainable. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram (37 ITR 288), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that assessment could not be based in the background of the suspicion and in the absence of any evidence supporting the same. By taking support of these…

MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, VILLAGE MANSOORWAL, TEHSIL ZIRA HEAD OFFICE, OLD CANTT ROAD, FARIDKOT,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 48/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

…on was applied by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Anupam Kapoor (166 Taxman 178). The impugned addition was merely on conjecture and surmises and without any findings of fact against the 15 assessee. In the case of Omay Salay Mohammed Sait (37 ITR 151), it was held that additions on the basis of conjectures, suspicion and surmises would not be sustainable. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram (37 ITR 288), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that assessment could not be based in the background of the suspicion and in the absence of any evidence supporting the same. By taking support of these…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, TEHSIL ZIRA, FARIDKOT -151203, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 463/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

…on was applied by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Anupam Kapoor (166 Taxman 178). The impugned addition was merely on conjecture and surmises and without any findings of fact against the 15 assessee. In the case of Omay Salay Mohammed Sait (37 ITR 151), it was held that additions on the basis of conjectures, suspicion and surmises would not be sustainable. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram (37 ITR 288), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that assessment could not be based in the background of the suspicion and in the absence of any evidence supporting the same. By taking support of these…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, QUILA CHOWK

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 193/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

…on was applied by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Anupam Kapoor (166 Taxman 178). The impugned addition was merely on conjecture and surmises and without any findings of fact against the 15 assessee. In the case of Omay Salay Mohammed Sait (37 ITR 151), it was held that additions on the basis of conjectures, suspicion and surmises would not be sustainable. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram (37 ITR 288), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that assessment could not be based in the background of the suspicion and in the absence of any evidence supporting the same. By taking support of these…

VEEDOL CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1945/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 4(1) Veedol Corporation Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Yule House, 8, Dr. Rajendra 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Prasad Sarani, Kolkata-700001, Vs. Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct1122C Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, DR

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…made on estimation and presumption basis as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 Veedol Corporation Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 (SC)vide order dated 12-09-1972 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) dated 05-03- 1959. We also note that in our opinion, the club expenses incurred by the assessee which is a corporate entity is wholly and exclusively admissible as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd. [2012] 28 taxmann.com 429 (SC) dated 12-09-2012 and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Johnston P…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 5779/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) P a g e | 18 ITA No. 4444, 4445, 4448 & 5779/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Kalyanee Fortune Construction, Mumbai “…On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI vs. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4448/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ome-tax Officer could\ncome to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many\nsurmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which\ncannot take the place of proof in these matters.\nOmar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC)\nPage | 18\nITA No. 4444, 4445, 4448 & 5779/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21\nKalyanee Fortune Construction, Mumbai\n“...On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions,\nconjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper\nrejection of material and relevant evidence or p…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI vs. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4445/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) P a g e | 18 ITA No. 4444, 4445, 4448 & 5779/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Kalyanee Fortune Construction, Mumbai “…On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly…

SAMANDEEP KAUR, IRS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. TRIMURTI HOMES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1035/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1034/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1035/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit-Central Circle-1 M/S Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 Hb-1199, Phase-1, Urban Estate Vs. Dugri, Ludhiana-141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadct-6759-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No. 29/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No. 1034/Chandi/2024] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. Co. No. 30/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No. 1035/Chandi/2024] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Hb-1199, Phase-1, Urban Estate Ludhiana-141001 Vs. Dugri, Ludhiana-141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadct-6759-P (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) A/W Shri Aditya Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal (Ca) - Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) a/w Shri Aditya KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1034/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1035/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) DCIT-Central Circle-1 M/s Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 HB-1199, Phase-1, Urban Estate Vs. Dugri, Ludhiana-141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADCT-6759-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. CO. No. 29/Chandi/2025 [In ITA No. 1034/CHANDI/2024] (…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. TRIMURTI HOMES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1034/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1034/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1035/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit-Central Circle-1 M/S Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 Hb-1199, Phase-1, Urban Estate Vs. Dugri, Ludhiana-141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadct-6759-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No. 29/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No. 1034/Chandi/2024] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. Co. No. 30/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No. 1035/Chandi/2024] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Hb-1199, Phase-1, Urban Estate Ludhiana-141001 Vs. Dugri, Ludhiana-141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadct-6759-P (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) A/W Shri Aditya Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal (Ca) - Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) a/w Shri Aditya KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1034/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1035/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) DCIT-Central Circle-1 M/s Trimurti Homes Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 HB-1199, Phase-1, Urban Estate Vs. Dugri, Ludhiana-141002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADCT-6759-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. CO. No. 29/Chandi/2025 [In ITA No. 1034/CHANDI/2024] (…

DCIT, I.T.O. DELHI vs. RATHI STEEL AND POWER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2720/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2720/Del/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Rathi Steel & Power Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Chauhan Market, Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Madanpur Khadar, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate Near Shopping Complex, New Delhi Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-76 Pan: Aaacr1435K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mayank Patawari, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Revenue For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 68

…the case of Jayadayal Poddar vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra: AIR 1974 SC 171: ……..  Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC): ……..  Honourable Supreme Court in the cae of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC): ……  Honourable Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. K Mahim Udma [2001] 158 CTR (Ker.) 100: [2000] 242 ITR 133 (Ler.): …….. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, it can be said that it is a settled position in law that Income Tax Act does not entitle department to base the assessment on pure guess, without reference to any evide…

RATNADEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, OLD WARD 3(1)(3), NEW WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ther in law or on facts. The addition has been made on pure suspicion and presumption without any cogent material. It is trite law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof — as held by the Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [37 ITR 151 (SC)]. When the Department fails to produce reliable and admissible evidence, and when cross-examination of the only witness relied upon is denied, the addition so made cannot be legally upheld. 9. In light of the above discussion and the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the addition of R…

Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT

What is Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KALAWATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING P LTD., KOLKATA

HOME CONSTRUCTION CO, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

THE DAKSHIN DINAJPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,BALURGHAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3,, MALDA

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

MRS. JIGNA HIREN RAMBHIA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(5), MUMBAI

OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRE CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, VILLAGE MANSOORWAL, TEHSIL ZIRA HEAD OFFICE, OLD CANTT ROAD, FARIDKOT,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, TEHSIL ZIRA, FARIDKOT -151203, LUDHIANA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, QUILA CHOWK

VEEDOL CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI vs. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI vs. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

SAMANDEEP KAUR, IRS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. TRIMURTI HOMES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. TRIMURTI HOMES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

DCIT, I.T.O. DELHI vs. RATHI STEEL AND POWER LIMITED, DELHI

RATNADEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, OLD WARD 3(1)(3), NEW WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD