Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra

7 SCC 337Reported decision1998#3205 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 366,339 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

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3004/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…mption u/s 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the Ld. AR, vide his submissions dated 21.02.2025, relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein it was held that the presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning. Referring to the letter dated 31.08.2021 of the Ld. AO relied upon by the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR argued that same does not demonstrate the application of mind by the Ld. Addl. CIT. According to the Ld. A…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 15, Delhi

ITA 3002/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…mption u/s 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the Ld. AR, vide his submissions dated 21.02.2025, relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein it was held that the presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning. Referring to the letter dated 31.08.2021 of the Ld. AO relied upon by the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR argued that same does not demonstrate the application of mind by the Ld. Addl. CIT. According to the Ld. A…

Sushen Mohan Gupta, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -15, Delhi

ITA 2999/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…mption u/s 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the Ld. AR, vide his submissions dated 21.02.2025, relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein it was held that the presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning. Referring to the letter dated 31.08.2021 of the Ld. AO relied upon by the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR argued that same does not demonstrate the application of mind by the Ld. Addl. CIT. According to the Ld. A…

Sudhir Singh Yadav, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

ITA 3001/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special counsel for the Department
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 50Section 68

…mption u/s 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act is concerned, the Ld. AR, vide his submissions dated 21.02.2025, relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 337, wherein it was held that the presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning. Referring to the letter dated 31.08.2021 of the Ld. AO relied upon by the Ld. DR, the Ld. AR argued that same does not demonstrate the application of mind by the Ld. Addl. CIT. According to the Ld. A…

DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Rameshwer Dass, Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 136/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri R.P. Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 153Section 153ASection 153BSection 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 ITAs No.135 & 136/Del/2021 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Green Mark Infra Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6208/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 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”,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Green Mark Infra Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6206/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 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",…

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell -TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 35/DEL/2024[2022-23 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2025

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",…

Savita Goyal, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2821/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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",…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act, even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full an…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act, even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full an…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 2.13. For reopening an assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act, the following conditions are required to be satisfied: (i) the Assessing Officer must form a tentative or prima facie opinion on th…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 2.13. For reopening an assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act, the following conditions are required to be satisfied: (i) the Assessing Officer must form a tentative or prima facie opinion on th…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act, even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full an…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act, even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full an…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…tel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) 22 Jayant Manilal Gandhy 2.14. For reopening an assessment made undersection 143(3) of the Act, the following conditions are required to be satisfied: (i) the Assessing Officer must form a tentative…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…Patel v. Makwana (M. J.)/Asst. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2009] 313 ITR 170 (Bom) (para 31) Sri Krishna P. Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 221 ITR 538 (SC) (paras 56, 58) Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [1998] 7 SCC 337 (para 29) Union of India v. Suresh C. Baskey [1996] AIR 1996 SC 849 (para 20) United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 218 (Ker) (para 9) "(i) What is meant by the term 'change of opinion' ? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under section 147 of the Act, even within four years, if an assessee has furnished full and…