How many judgments cite Saraswathi Oil Traders v. CIT?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite Saraswathi Oil Traders v. CIT (254 ITR 259), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Saraswathi Oil Traders v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148, Section 263.

Saraswathi Oil Traders v. CIT

254 ITR 259Supreme Court of India2000#4651 most cited

What is Saraswathi Oil Traders v. CIT authority for?

An assessment cannot be made on the basis of a retracted statement alone, nor can income be assessed without supporting material. There must be some evidence to justify the assessment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Saraswathi Oil Traders v. CIT · retracted statement · bogus LTCG · addition under section 68 · section 10(38) · penny stock · principal commissioner of income-tax · tangible material · long term capital gains · genuineness of the transaction · long term capital gain · income-tax officer

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 263 Section 68 Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

retracted statement bogus ltcg live link addition under section 68 penny stock section 10(38)principal commissioner of income-tax tangible material long term capital gains genuineness of the transaction long term capital gain income-tax officer

Judgments citing Saraswathi Oil Traders v. CIT

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alka N Madhani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2397/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 2397/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

Section 133(6)Section 69C

…High Court that merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent I am in agreement with the appellant that if the appellant has fulfilled his onus of making the payments by banking channels and has supplied the addr…

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abhay Automotive Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4939/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Sighi.T.A. No.4939/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Ito-32(1)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Abhay Automotive R.No.201, C-11, 2Nd Floor, Company, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, B/402, Sumer Nagar, Building Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. No.3, S.V. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aajfa3745K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…so failed to produce the purchase parties before the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in relying upon judgment in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Enterprises (372 ITR 619) and Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT (254 ITR 259) (SC) without appreciating that the facts involved in the appellant‟s case are different from the facts of the above case laws.” 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of „resale of Motor, Truck and Auto parts and accessories‟. Assessee filed the return of income declaring the total income of…

ITO 32(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajan R. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed and the Cross

ITA 5326/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajen R. Shah (Huf) 32(3)(1), Room No. 107, 1 St 604C, Sumer Nagar, S.V. Road, Floor, C-11, Pratayakshakar Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-92 Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400051 Pan No.Aaehr3734E Appellant .. Respondent

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

…High Court that merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent I am in agreement with the appellant that if the appellant has fulfilled his onus of submitting the details of purchases, stock statements and has sup…

DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai vs. Chains Corner Jewellery (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal for Asst

ITA 3705/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs M/S. Chains Corner Jewellery (I) Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 9, 1St Floor, Tax, Central Circle-22, Central Range-5, Kapadia Building No. 2, Mumbai (Appellant) 31/33, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai 400 002 (Respondent) Pan : Aabcc7451M : M/S. Chains Corner Jewellery Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income- (I) Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 9, Tax, Central Circle-22, 1St Floor, Kapadia Building Mumbai (Respondent) No. 2, 31/33, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai 400 002 Pan : Aabcc7451M (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod K. Parida &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Ojha, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…d other Directors should be read in their entirety. In support of the assessee’s submissions that only GP is to be taxed in respect of cash sales, reliance was placed on the following judicial decisions : (1) 49 ITD 177 (Mum) Balaji Textiles Ind. P. Ltd. (2) 254 ITR 259 (SC) Swastik Oil Traders (3) 252 ITR 476 (Guj) DCIT v. Adinath Industries (4) 247 ITR (St) 35 Adinath’s SLP rejected 7.3 Per contra, the ld. DR emphatically supported the orders of the authorities below. The ld. DR submitted that the grounds raised and the averments therein (supra) are identical to those raised before the ld. CIT(A) and rejected…

M/S Chains Corner Jewellery (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC - 22, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal for Asst

ITA 2558/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod K. Parida &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Ojha, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)