Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT

37 ITR 151Supreme Court of India1959#197 most cited

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.

372

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT · 37 ITR 151 · suspicion not proof · assessment without evidence · no addition on conjecture · surmises and suspicion · sections 143(3) 147 68 · income tax assessment evidence · burden of proof income tax · evidentiary value

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

price riggingthird party informationbogus long term capital gaindumb documentsbogus ltcgsection 132(4a)penny stocksection 10(38)rejection of books of accountloose paperslong term capital gainssection 34

Judgments citing Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3) New Ward3(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

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…

ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1306/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1306/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Ito Maheshwari Sales Corporation बनाम/ Ward-4(2)(3) C-111, Ganesh Meridin V/S. Ahmedabad Nr.Sola Bridge, Sola Ahmedabad-380 058 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalfm 4917 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 11/04/2025, Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Ito Vs. Maheshwari Sales Corporation Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 250Section 68

…ear : 2018-19 investigation report and general modus operandi without confronting the assessee or bringing any specific material on record could not justify the addition. Placing reliance on judicial precedents including Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC), and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), the CIT(A) held that suspicion, conjectures, and surmises cannot take the place of evidence. Accordingly, it was held that the Assessing Officer had made the addition merely o…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) VmaCharan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v ClT, Bombay (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills ltd. v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Bo…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) VmaCharan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v ClT, Bombay (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills ltd. v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Book) iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT (extracted at page 266 of Paper Bo…

Sant Lal Aggarwal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

ITA 2243/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessmentyear:2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…roposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT iv) AIR 1977 SC 796 Krishnand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 Sant Lal Aggarwal v. ACIT 12 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted with respect since the appellant has made the cash deposits out of the sale of the properties as such, addition made by the le…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its fi…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its fi…

Manisha Kamal Khetan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in terms of our

ITA 2698/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, SR AR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…SEBI, which regulates the trading in stock exchange. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V /s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). Therefore, we find that onus as cast upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record…

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…he basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. Vs. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: 1. 37 ITR 151 Omar Salay Mohammad Sait Vs. CIT 2. 26 ITR 736 Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT 3. 26 ITR 775 Dhakeshwari Cotton MillsLtd. Vs. CIT 4. 37 ITR 288 Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 5. 91 ITR 8 CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. It is further submitted that the expenditure being incurred in the day to day business activity and is wholly and exclus…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai vs. Klt Automotive and Tubular Products Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 822/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. KLT Automotive and Income Tax, Tubular Products Central Circle 6(4), Limited, Room No.453, 4th Floor, B-601, Elegants Business Park, Vs. Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra – 400 059 G Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 PAN: AAACT3895R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 2…

ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Pradeep Patil, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2671/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2671/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Acit Vs Pradeep Patil Circle-49(1) 306, Gold Plaza Building, Room No. 1505, E-2 Block, Gurudwara Road, Dr.Spm Civic Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Baipp4632G

Section 143(3)Section 68

…of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1977 SC 796 JayadayalPoddar v. Mst. BibiHazra: AIR 1974 SC 171 CIT v. K MahimUdma [2000] 158 CTR (Ken) 100: [2000] 242 ITR 133 (Ker.) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) Asstt. CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd [2008] 118 TTJ 228: [2008] 11 DTR (Delhi) (Trib.) 281 DhirajLalGirdhariLalVs. CIT 26ITR 736 LalehandBhagatAmbika Ram VS. CIT 37 ITR 288 10.2.8 It is also seen that the total cash-sales during the year was Rs.10.27,91,367/- which was only 10,04% of the total sales made during the year i.e. Rs. 102,37,32,2…

Maruthi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 873/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Malla Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 872/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Malla Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 871/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Cmr Engineering Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 870/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Cmr Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 869/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Cmr Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 868/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Cmr Technical Education Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 867/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Cmr Technical Education Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 866/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

K M R Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 865/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…