Raj Mohan Saha v. CIT

11 ITR 462High Court1943#13223 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Raj Mohan Saha v. CIT

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

…eference to any evidence or any material, is unjustified. For this, reliance is placed on the orders in the cases of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC); Raj Mohan Saha Vs CIT (1964) 54 ITR 231 (Assam), CIT Vs Gokaldas Hukumchand (1943) 11 ITR 462 (Bom), Narayan Chandra Baidya Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287 (Cal), Gopi Nath Agarwala Vs CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753 (All), United Patel Construction Co. Vs CIT (1966) 59 ITR 424 (M.P), CIT Vs R.Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 178 (Raj). 1.18 In other words, the assessment must be baser) not on mere suspicion or bare guess, but on legitimate material from which…

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Grandiose Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4Th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaagca5371D अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By Shri Rahul Raman, Cit Dr : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2020

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support an assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65 ' (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC). Also see: CIT v. Gokaldas Hukumchand, (1943) 11 ITR 462, 469 (Bom); Ram Datta Sita Ram of Basti, In re, (1947) 15 ITR 61, 85 (all.); United Pael Construction Co. v. CIT, (1966) 59 hR 424, 426 (MP); CIT v. R.Y. Durlabhji. (1955)80 Taxman 479 : (1955) 211 ITR 178, 189 (Raj.). 3.9. As regards, abjection against additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer…

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…k. The AO is not entitled to make a guess without any evidence. This view is supported by the following decisions:- a)Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). b) Raj Mohan SahaVrs. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 231 (Assam) c) CIT v. Gokaldas Hukumchand (1943) 11 ITR 462 (Bom). d) Ram DattaSita Ram of Basti (1947) 15 ITR 61 (All) e) Narayan Chandra Baidya v. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287. 55 I.T.A. No. 5091 & 4198/Mum/2007 & CO-261/Mum/2007 Shri Suresh V. Jain f) GopiNathAgarwala v. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753 (All) g) United Patel Construction Co. v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 424 (MP). h) CIT v. R. Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 178 (Raj…

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S.Re N Raga Media Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 143(3) vide; {Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT,(1954)26 ITR 775,782(SC); Raj Mohan Saha v. CIT, (1964)52 ITR 231 (Assam). Also see, CIT V. Gokaldas Hukumchand, (1943)11 ITR 462,469(Bom) … … 3.16 Recently, in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd [ INCOME TAX APPEAL N0.1613 OF 2014] it was held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that, "Bogus share capital/premium; The proviso to s.68(which creates and obligation on the issuing Co to explain the source of share capital & premium) has been introduced by the Fin…

DCIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Trimurthi Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5052/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…an bare suspicion to support the assessment u/s. 143(3), as has been held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC), Raj Mohanaha vs. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 231(Assam). Also see CTT vs. Gokaldas M/s. Trimurti Developers Hukumchand (1943) 11 ITR 462,469 (Bom), Ram Datta Sita Ram of Basti, in re,{1947) 15 ITR 61, 85 (All), Narayan Chandra Baidya vs. CTT (1951) 20 TTR 287, 292 (Cal), Gopi Nath Agarwala vs. CTT (1955) 28 ITR 75 3, 762 (All). 6,15 In view of the above discussion and various references of the facts, 1 reach to the conclusion that Ld, AO has wrongly invoked provision of law u/s. 14…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…s bad in law, supports the case of the assessee. Reference can also be made to the following decisions:- a. Dbakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) b. Raj Mohan Saha Vs. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 231 (Assam) c. CIT Vs. Gokaldas Hukumehand (1943) 11 ITR 462 (Born) ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah d. Ram Datta Sita Ram of Basti (1947) 15 ITR 61 (All) e. Narayan Chandra Baidya Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287 In earlier paras of this order, we have already elaborated that the sale of shares of M/s. Robinson Impex Ltd during Assessment Year 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07 has been proved by the…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha B Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)