Para 5 119- CIT v. Ram Narain

262 ITR 295High Court2003#2863 most cited

What is Para 5 119- CIT v. Ram Narain authority for?

The Assessing Officer must base assessments on tangible material and evidence, not on mere assumptions, presumptions, conjectures, or surmises, particularly in search assessments under Section 153A where no incriminating material is found. The AO cannot disregard documentary evidence without specific material to controvert it.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ram Narain · Faqir Chand Chaman Lal · Section 153A · Section 10(38) · tangible material · material evidence · assumptions presumptions · conjectures surmises · search assessment · incriminating material · documentary evidence · long term capital gain genuineness

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

paper companysection 153(a)penny stocksection 10(38)section 249section 153dsearch assessmentdelay in filing appealsection 132asection 253long term capital gainsection 133

Judgments citing Para 5 119- CIT v. Ram Narain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…is placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that no ad-hoc disallowance can be made by the assessing officer. Attention, in this regard, is invited to the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Faqir Chand ChamanLal: 262 ITR 295 (P&H) (SLP Dismissed), wherein certain additions were made on estimate basis on account of interest earned from pawning business. The High Court, while affirming the order of the Tribunal, held that additions being made on the basis of conjectures and surmises could not be sustained. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat H…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…is placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that no ad-hoc disallowance can be made by the assessing officer. Attention, in this regard, is invited to the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Faqir Chand ChamanLal: 262 ITR 295 (P&H) (SLP Dismissed), wherein certain additions were made on estimate basis on account of interest earned from pawning business. The High Court, while affirming the order of the Tribunal, held that additions being made on the basis of conjectures and surmises could not be sustained. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat H…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…is placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that no ad-hoc disallowance can be made by the assessing officer. Attention, in this regard, is invited to the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Faqir Chand ChamanLal: 262 ITR 295 (P&H) (SLP Dismissed), wherein certain additions were made on estimate basis on account of interest earned from pawning business. The High Court, while affirming the order of the Tribunal, held that additions being made on the basis of conjectures and surmises could not be sustained. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat H…

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…material/evidence and not on the basis of assumptions/presumptions [refer J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC), Assam Tea Co. vs. ITO: 92 ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB), Faqir Chand Chaman Lal vs. ACIT: (2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.) (Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR), CIT vs. Paras Cotton Co.: 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)] 33. In the present case, the entire case of the Assessing Officer is based on merely conjectures and surmises, without any tangible material being brought on record to controvert the cogent documentary, contemporaneous material/ evidences placed on record by the ap…

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…material/evidence and not on the basis of assumptions/presumptions [refer J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC), Assam Tea Co. vs. ITO: 92 ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB), Faqir Chand Chaman Lal vs. ACIT: (2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.) (Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR), CIT vs. Paras Cotton Co.: 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)] 33. In the present case, the entire case of the Assessing Officer is based on merely conjectures and surmises, without any tangible material being brought on record to controvert the cogent documentary, contemporaneous material/ evidences placed on record by the ap…

SMT. RITU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 305/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA andFor Respondent: \nSmt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 263

…n his regard\nis placed on the following decisions:-\ni) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC)\nii) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.)\niii) Faqir Chand Chaman Lal v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal\ndismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR\n215(St)];\niv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)];\nv) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)]\n7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being a search\ncase. No incriminating material, to show that the long term capital gain shown by\nthe assessee i…

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…nce in his regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC) ii) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.) iii) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; iv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; v) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being a search case. No incriminating material, to show that the long term capital gain shown by the assessee is in…

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…nce in his regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC) ii) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.) iii) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; iv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; v) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being a search case. No incriminating material, to show that the long term capital gain shown by the assessee is in…

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…nce in his regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC) ii) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.) iii) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; iv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; v) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being a search case. No incriminating material, to show that the long term capital gain shown by the assessee is ing…

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 705/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…d is placed on the following decisions:-\ni)\nii)\niii)\niv)\nv)\nLalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC)\nCIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.)\nFaqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal\ndismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268\nITR 215(St)];\nAssam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)];\nJhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Мит.)]\n7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being a\nsearch case. No incriminating material, to show that the long term capital gain\nshown by the assessee is ingen…

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 704/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: \nShri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…d is placed on the following decisions:-\ni)\nii)\niii)\niv)\nv)\nLalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC)\nCIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.)\nFaqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal\ndismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268\nITR 215(St)];\nAssam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)];\nJhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Мит.)]\n7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being a\nsearch case. No incriminating material, to show that the long term capital gain\nshown by the assessee is ingen…

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 306/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: \nShri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…in his regard is placed on the following decisions:-\ni) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37ITR 288) (SC)\nii) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co. (288 ITR 211) (Raj.)\niii) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal\ndismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268\nITR 215(St)];\niv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)];\nv) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Мит.)]\n7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being a\nsearch case. No incriminating material, to show that the long term capital gain\nshown by the assessee i…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

…h Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Narain Goel, [1997] 92 Taxman 259/224 ITR 180 (Punj. & Har.) held that suspicion however drawn cannot take place on evidence or proof. This case was followed in the case of CIT v. Faqir Chand Chaman Lal, [2003] 133 Taxman 947/262 ITR 295 (Punj. & Har.). 24. The argument raised by counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal should have send back the matter to the assessing authority to decide afresh is a fallacy, as the CIT itself on 5.6.2013, while deciding the appeal of the assessee under Section 250 of the Act set aside the assessment order dated 18.11.2010 to the extent of addi…

THE ACIT CENTRAL-1 , BHOPAL vs. SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, GWALIOR

ITA 795/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Central-1 Shri Narendra Gupta, Bhopal Gwalior बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Afqpg 8055 A Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Date Of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)

…inging any positive evidence on record. Ld AR has placed reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P & H) that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. Honble P & H High Court in the case of CIT v /s Faquir Chaman lal 262 ITR 295 (P & H) has held that it is well settled proposition that the presumption however strong cannot substitute evidence. Similar were the findings of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Emerald commercial ltd & Anr 250 ITR 539 (cal). (C) Ld AO erred in adding the entire amount: Page 8 of 14 Shri Narendra Gupta Assessment year 2014-…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI NEERAJ MANDLOI, NEW DELHI

ITA 680/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

…b document. 37. In the case of CIT vs. Ram NarairiGoel, 224 ITR 180, the Hon'ble P &H High Court has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence or proof. Similarly, the Hon'ble P &H High Court in the case of CIT vs. FaqirChamanLal, 262 ITR 295 has held that it is a well settled proposition that the presumption howsoever strong cannot substitute evidence. 38. In AmritlalNatwarlalVs. ACIT reported in 57 TTJ 454/482 (Ahd) in the loose paper, the year was not mentioned although date &month were mentioned. The ITAT held that as no year is mentioned, therefore, there is no basis for making a…

NAWAL KISHORE,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 1705/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 68

…In support, he relied on following decisions: • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT [(1959) 37ITR 288 (SC)]; • CIT v. Paras Cotton Co[(2007) 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)]; • Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H • High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215 (St)]; • Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; • Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 4.6 The Ld. counsel also submitted that the information from DIT, Kolkata has not been provided to the assessee, which is against the tenets of the natural Justice and thus, assessme…

SATISH KISHORE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 47(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 1704/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 68

…In support, he relied on following decisions: • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT [(1959) 37ITR 288 (SC)]; • CIT v. Paras Cotton Co[(2007) 288 ITR 211 (Raj.)]; • Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT [(2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H • High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215 (St)]; • Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; • Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 4.6 The Ld. counsel also submitted that the information from DIT, Kolkata has not been provided to the assessee, which is against the tenets of the natural Justice and thus, assessme…

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/IND/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 710/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

Para 5 119- CIT v. Ram Narain (262 ITR 295) — Cited in 41 Judgments | BharatTax