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)

Uma Shanker Sharma, Vrindavan, Mathura vs. ITO, Ward 2, ITO WD Two, Bharatpur

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

ITA 914/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment rendering the re- assessment proceedings all the more vulnerable. In this relation assessee places reliance on (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. 3. 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…

Dhanuka Realty Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 202/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 56(1)Section 56(2)

…o believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment rendering the re-assessment proceedings all the more vulnerable. In this relation assessee places reliance on (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. 3. 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…

Ram Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…is proposition, is placed on the orders in the cases of Dhirajlal Giridharilal Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs,.ClT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC); Omar Salay Mohamad Sait Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC). I.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta 1.20 In view of the facts of the case and the case laws discussed in the preceding paragraphs, it is submitted that the addition of the sale proceeds deposited in the bank account as undisclosed income is unjustified. There is no material to hold that the cash deposited was no…

Pawan Gupta, Kota vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Kota, Kota

ITA 252/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "SMC" JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: Hon'ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 252/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pawan Gupta B-801, Royal Palm, Canal Road Bajrang Nagar, Kota बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 1(3) Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABNPG 3277 D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Sisodia Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR सुनवाई की…

Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Kota

ITA 246/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Kumar & Ors. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.457/Del/2018, 2825/Del/2018 & 2826/Del/2018 order dt. 05.11.2018) 9. DCIT Vs. Rakesh Saraogi & Sons (HUF) (2018) 32 NYPTTJ 1116 (Raipur) (Trib.) 1.17 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) 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) (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…

Rajrajeshwari Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 245/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 245/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Raj Rajeshwari Gupta cuke The ITO Vs. 205-C, Talwandi Ward 1(1) Kota Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAVPG 2155K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Sisodia Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :…

Mohammed Ibrabim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

…Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 26 of 62 (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, 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…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

…Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 26 of 62 (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, 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…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 69B

…Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, 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 rele…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

…Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 26 of 62 (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, 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…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

…Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 26 of 62 (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, 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…

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod ITA Nos.174 & 175/Bang/2024 MKH Infrastructure, Kasargod Page 26 of 62 (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 8.11. Further, 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 re…

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod ITA Nos.174 & 175/Bang/2024 MKH Infrastructure, Kasargod Page 26 of 62 (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 8.11. Further, 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 re…

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ge 67 of 104 (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) 13.47. Further, 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 r…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ge 67 of 104 (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) 13.47. Further, 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 r…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ge 67 of 104 (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) 13.47. Further, 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 r…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ge 67 of 104 (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) 13.47. Further, 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 r…

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ge 67 of 104 (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) 13.47. Further, 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 r…

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…w on this subject has been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab (1944) 12 I.T.R. 393” Also refer DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary MohanmedSait v CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT v Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 16. On perusal of the assessment order it is revealed that the Ld. AO did not disturb the Net Profit as deduced/declared by the Books of Accounts as followed by Audited Financial statement but making addition on the basis of Cash deposited t…

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

…ng that cash credits or (Nag.) CIT high denomination notes encased upon demonetization represent undisclosed income, would be rejected by the court if there is no evidence to support it. 10 (i) 26 ITR 775, (ii) (a) Dharkeshwari In these cases Hon’ble Supreme 37 ITR 151 and (iii) Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Court has set aside the 37 ITR 288 all the CIT (b) Omar Salay assessment on the ground that it three are Supreme Mohammed vs. CIT was based on bare suspicion Court Judgment conjectures and surmises. and (c) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT respectively 11 CIT vs. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court In KailashJewellery H…

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

Uma Shanker Sharma, Vrindavan, Mathura vs. ITO, Ward 2, ITO WD Two, Bharatpur

Dhanuka Realty Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

Ram Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

Pawan Gupta, Kota vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Kota, Kota

Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Kota

Rajrajeshwari Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kota

Mohammed Ibrabim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur