Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra

7 SCC 337Reported decision1998#3248 most cited

What is Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra authority for?

A presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act can only be drawn from established facts through probable and logical reasoning, not from other presumptions. Consolidated approval for multiple assessment years by an approving authority renders the requirement of individual approval for each year under Section 153D nugatory.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra · 1998 · 7 SCC 337 · Section 114(e) Evidence Act · presumption from facts · logical reasoning · Section 153D approval · consolidated approval · individual assessment year approval

Sections most often in play

Section 153DSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 114(e)Section 132Section 144Section 127Section 292BB

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)section 292ccsection 79section 292bbsection 153a(1)section 114section 153dsection 144bapanchnamasection 292csection 65bsection 65

Judgments citing Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra

ITO, WARD 28(1), NEW DELHI vs. SUDHA PAWA LH LATE SWATI PAWA, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

SATISH KUMAR PAWA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2075/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

SATISH KUMAR PAWA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2074/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

ITO,WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. SATISH KUMAR PAWA, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3060/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

ITO,WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. SUDHA PAWA (L/H OF LATE SWATI PAWA), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3059/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

ITO,WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. SUDHA PAWA (L/H OF LATE MS SWATI PAWA), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3058/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3935/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees" for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 3658/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2820/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SAURAV AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6200/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SAURAV AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6199/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI vs. SANT LAL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6197/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI vs. SANT LAL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6196/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 153D

…. 12. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. 13. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for "each assessment year",…

ACIT, CC-18, NEW DELHI vs. SUDHA PAWA, MUMBAI

ITA 1211/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian 12. Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for 13. various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for “each assessment year”,…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SWATI PAWA, NEW DELHI

ITA 657/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian 12. Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for 13. various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for “each assessment year”,…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SWATI PAWA, NEW DELHI

ITA 541/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian 12. Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for 13. various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for “each assessment year”,…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SATISH KUMAR PAWA, NEW DELHI

ITA 540/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian 12. Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for 13. various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for “each assessment year”,…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGAT PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6208/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian 12. Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for 13. various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for “each assessment year”,…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SAURAV AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

ITA 6198/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian 12. Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for 13. various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for “each assessment year”,…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI vs. SANT LAL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

ITA 6195/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Saurav Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi- New Delhi-110034 110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ahlpa7628J The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Shri Sant Lal Aggarwal, Of Income Tax D-31, Pushpanjali Central Circle-18, First Floor, Enclave, Pitampura, New Jhandewalan, Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110055. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aewpa7133C

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 292BSection 292C

…. As far as the issue of presumption u/s 114(e) of the then Indian 12. Evidence Act is concerned, the ld AR relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein, it was held that presumption can be drawn only from facts, not from other presumptions and only through a process of probable and logical reasoning. We find that if a consolidated approval given by the ld. Addl. CIT for 13. various assessees‟ for various assessment years is to be considered as a approval given for “each assessment year”,…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2