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 366,314 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukottai

ITA 1276/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

Section 132(4)

…Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch document is vague and dump document. No ad…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. K. Rethinam, Dindigul

ITA 1275/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

…OTR 736 (iv) Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 (x) It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch document is vague and dump docume…

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(2), Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai 432, Lamington Road, Shigney Building, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai – 400004 (PAN : AADHM4374A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Mitesh Mehta, CA Revenue : Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Naginlal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6812/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Manoj Naginlal Jain, 6809/Mum/24 2013-14 1802, Tower 6, DCIT(CC)-8(3), Rustomjee Ozone, 6806/Mum/24 2014-15 6th Floor, Goregaon Mulund 6810/Mum/24 2015-16 Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, 6807/Mum/24 2016-17 M.K.Road, Goregaon West, 6808/Mum/24 2017-18 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400062 6812/Mum/24 2018-19 [PAN: AADPJ5617R] 6811/Mum/24 2019-20 C.O. No. A.Y. Cross-Objector Respondent 30/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA 2013-14 No.6809/M/24) 3…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Naginlal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6811/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Manoj Naginlal Jain, 6809/Mum/24 2013-14 1802, Tower 6, DCIT(CC)-8(3), Rustomjee Ozone, 6806/Mum/24 2014-15 6th Floor, Goregaon Mulund 6810/Mum/24 2015-16 Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, 6807/Mum/24 2016-17 M.K.Road, Goregaon West, 6808/Mum/24 2017-18 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400062 6812/Mum/24 2018-19 [PAN: AADPJ5617R] 6811/Mum/24 2019-20 C.O. No. A.Y. Cross-Objector Respondent 30/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA 2013-14 No.6809/M/24) 3…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Naginlal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6810/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Manoj Naginlal Jain, 6809/Mum/24 2013-14 1802, Tower 6, DCIT(CC)-8(3), Rustomjee Ozone, 6806/Mum/24 2014-15 6th Floor, Goregaon Mulund 6810/Mum/24 2015-16 Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, 6807/Mum/24 2016-17 M.K.Road, Goregaon West, 6808/Mum/24 2017-18 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400062 6812/Mum/24 2018-19 [PAN: AADPJ5617R] 6811/Mum/24 2019-20 C.O. No. A.Y. Cross-Objector Respondent 30/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA 2013-14 No.6809/M/24) 3…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Naginlal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6809/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Manoj Naginlal Jain, 6809/Mum/24 2013-14 1802, Tower 6, DCIT(CC)-8(3), Rustomjee Ozone, 6806/Mum/24 2014-15 6th Floor, Goregaon Mulund 6810/Mum/24 2015-16 Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, 6807/Mum/24 2016-17 M.K.Road, Goregaon West, 6808/Mum/24 2017-18 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400062 6812/Mum/24 2018-19 [PAN: AADPJ5617R] 6811/Mum/24 2019-20 C.O. No. A.Y. Cross-Objector Respondent 30/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA 2013-14 No.6809/M/24) 3…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Naginlal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6808/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Manoj Naginlal Jain, 6809/Mum/24 2013-14 1802, Tower 6, DCIT(CC)-8(3), Rustomjee Ozone, 6806/Mum/24 2014-15 6th Floor, Goregaon Mulund 6810/Mum/24 2015-16 Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, 6807/Mum/24 2016-17 M.K.Road, Goregaon West, 6808/Mum/24 2017-18 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400062 6812/Mum/24 2018-19 [PAN: AADPJ5617R] 6811/Mum/24 2019-20 C.O. No. A.Y. Cross-Objector Respondent 30/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA 2013-14 No.6809/M/24) 3…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Naginlal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6807/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Manoj Naginlal Jain, 6809/Mum/24 2013-14 1802, Tower 6, DCIT(CC)-8(3), Rustomjee Ozone, 6806/Mum/24 2014-15 6th Floor, Goregaon Mulund 6810/Mum/24 2015-16 Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, 6807/Mum/24 2016-17 M.K.Road, Goregaon West, 6808/Mum/24 2017-18 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400062 6812/Mum/24 2018-19 [PAN: AADPJ5617R] 6811/Mum/24 2019-20 C.O. No. A.Y. Cross-Objector Respondent 30/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA 2013-14 No.6809/M/24) 3…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Manoj Naginlal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6806/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Manoj Naginlal Jain, 6809/Mum/24 2013-14 1802, Tower 6, DCIT(CC)-8(3), Rustomjee Ozone, 6806/Mum/24 2014-15 6th Floor, Goregaon Mulund 6810/Mum/24 2015-16 Aayakar Bhavan, Link Road, 6807/Mum/24 2016-17 M.K.Road, Goregaon West, 6808/Mum/24 2017-18 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400062 6812/Mum/24 2018-19 [PAN: AADPJ5617R] 6811/Mum/24 2019-20 C.O. No. A.Y. Cross-Objector Respondent 30/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA 2013-14 No.6809/M/24) 3…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6281/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…fail to discharge in rebutting the documents of the assessee. Therefore AO and Ld. CIT(A) merely cannot treat the genuine transactions as in genuine on the basis of suspicious and surmises as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Sahay Mohd Sail 37 ITR 151 (SC), Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Umacharan Shah & Bros, 37 ITR 271 (SC). Hence in these circumstances no additions are warranted. Therefore considering the overall factual and legal position we direct the AO to delete the addition. ITA Nos. 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 10. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are ide…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6280/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…fail to discharge in rebutting the documents of the assessee. Therefore AO and Ld. CIT(A) merely cannot treat the genuine transactions as in genuine on the basis of suspicious and surmises as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Sahay Mohd Sail 37 ITR 151 (SC), Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Umacharan Shah & Bros, 37 ITR 271 (SC). Hence in these circumstances no additions are warranted. Therefore considering the overall factual and legal position we direct the AO to delete the addition. ITA Nos. 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 10. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are ide…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…fail to discharge in rebutting the documents of the assessee. Therefore AO and Ld. CIT(A) merely cannot treat the genuine transactions as in genuine on the basis of suspicious and surmises as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Sahay Mohd Sail 37 ITR 151 (SC), Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Umacharan Shah & Bros, 37 ITR 271 (SC). Hence in these circumstances no additions are warranted. Therefore considering the overall factual and legal position we direct the AO to delete the addition. ITA Nos. 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 10. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are ide…

Rohit Gandhi vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA/957/2018HC Delhi28 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)

…Page 9 of 9 be acquainted with the artists in question. There is no reason to suspect that they have not given their personal works of art as gifts to the Assessee. 31. In Omar Salay Mohd. Sait v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras : (1959) 37 ITR 151, the Supreme Court observed as under: “33. ….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 on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything o…

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1529/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH a
Section 12ASection 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…has escaped assessment rendering the re- assessment proceedings all the more vulnerable. In this relation assessee places reliance on some Supreme Court judgements, namely, (1) Dharkeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775, (2) Omar Salay Mohammed Vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 and (3) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288. 4. That the Indian Courts including the Apex Court have time and again held that action u/s.147 of the I.T. Act 1961 cannot be taken for reopening assessment if the information is wholly vague, indefinite, far-fetched and remote. The courts have also held that there must be a live link or clo…

ITO, Mumbai vs. Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani, Mumbai

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

ITA 5177/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-24(1)(1), Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani, Piramal Chambers, 2601/02, Royal Empire, Lalbaugh, Parel, Vs. Shashtri Nagar, Mumbai Andheri West, Mumbai Pan :Admpv7590F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 10(38)

…chase and sale of shares undertaken by the assessee. 9. Before us, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on various decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches. We also notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait 6 (1989)(37 ITR 151)(SC) that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. We may also refer to the some of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court. In the case of Shyam Pawar (54 taxmann.com 108)(Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed as under:- “3. Mr.Sureshkumar seriously complained that such fin…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…(iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT [1959] 37 I Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) 41. We particularly find the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) in support We particularly find the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) in support We particularly find the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) in support of his above findings on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in of…

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…lthough the suspicion may be strong, however 70 Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT cannot take place of reality refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (261 ITR 775(SC), Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary Mohanmedsait Vs CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT Vs Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 3(iii) Further, the assessment order also undoubtedly speaks that no show cause notice for invoking the provision of section 115 BBE has been issued by the learned AO. As it is a settled legal mandatory requirement that the learned AO has…

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 879/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…ncome-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) "...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 on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on que…

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…ncome-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) "...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 on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on que…