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)

Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 291/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…support the actions based on hypothetical grounds. In this regard the assessee craves leave to refer to and rely upon on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 1. Dharkeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 2. Omar Salay Mohammed Vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 3. Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (l) That detailed exhaustive stock register has been maintained for each and every items traded and the same was duly produced before the A.O. (m) That out of total sales of Rs. 16,77,23,126/- except a meager local sales of Rs. 56,63,661/- the balance sales of Rs. 16,20,59,465/- are export sales a…

Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…h the same. It is trite law that presumption, however, strong, cannot be a substitute, nor can it take place of evidence. For the said proposition, reliance is placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court decision, in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1989) 37 ITR 151 (SC) wherein it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. 27. We note that Assessing Officer has relied on the report of Investigation Wing Kolkata dated 27.04.2015. At the outset, these could not be relied on for the simple reason that the assessee has never taken any accommodation entry from any…

G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

ITA 5922/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

…of assessee. - Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT : (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) - Nitin Sales Corporation vs. ITO : [2008] 212 Taxation 49 (Delhi HC) - Friends Clering Agency (P) Ltd. vs. CIT : [2011] 237 CTR 464 (Del) - Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT : [1959) 37 ITR 151 - State of Orissa v. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo : (1970) 76 ITR 690 6.1 It was also submitted that appellant has sold dies to HCIL at loss of Rs. 39,43,12,558/- and after negotiating recovered foreign exchange loss of Rs. 16,44,05,000/- incurred on account of purchases of dies and consequently reduced the loss to Rs. 22,99,07,858/- which shows g…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

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

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…54) 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) 30. 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 relevant findi…

Pravina Navin Dedhia, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1701/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Maulik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…evidence whereof was with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have added the income, which was rightly deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal.” 8.7. In the case Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 151, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “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 t…

Mumtaz Dilawar Gani, Bharuch vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1443/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…s of transactions and their creditworthiness, said addition was to be deleted. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “We have heard both the sides. At the outset, the decision of the Apex Court in case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 requires reference which holds that the ITAT is a fact finding tribunal and once it arrives at any conclusion after due consideration of evidence, this Court is not to interfere. What is required is to consider every fact with due care and the Tribunal is required to give its findings on the questions which arise for determination along with the e…

Mumtaz Dilawar Gani, Bharuch vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1442/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…s of transactions and their creditworthiness, said addition was to be deleted. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “We have heard both the sides. At the outset, the decision of the Apex Court in case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 requires reference which holds that the ITAT is a fact finding tribunal and once it arrives at any conclusion after due consideration of evidence, this Court is not to interfere. What is required is to consider every fact with due care and the Tribunal is required to give its findings on the questions which arise for determination along with the e…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2665/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…ng evidence that assessee was receiving cash and disguising it as discount. The observations of the AO are in the nature of mere suspicion. It has been held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), by the Apex Court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. The AO writes that basis and justification for discount of each of the 1600 cases having…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…ng evidence that assessee was receiving cash and disguising it as discount. The observations of the AO are in the nature of mere suspicion. It has been held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), by the Apex Court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. The AO writes that basis and justification for discount of each of the 1600 cases having…

Shri Raj Kumar ( M/S Radhika Sales Corp ), Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (3), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

…he Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Order of - Assessment year 1948-49 - Whether Tribunal should Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-tax not base its findings on suspicions, conjectures, or surmises nor reported at [1959] 37 ITR 151 should it act on evidence at all or on improper rejection of (SC)[05-03-1959] material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of that sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by Supreme Court - Held, yes” [2022] 145 taxmann.c…