Similarly, in State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew

42 STC 348Supreme Court of India1978#20935 most cited

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

Sections most often in play

Section 10AB Section 10B Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 92B Section 92C

Judgments citing Similarly, in State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2346/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

…ses only because of doubts and assumptions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw Bros. v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 271 has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Similarly, in State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew reported in 42 STC 348 (SC), it was held that additions cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or surmises. In the present case, all primary evidences of purchases were submitted. Hence, the disallowance is only based on suspicion which is against settled principles of law. 52.3 The assessee also submits that the AO wrongly assumed that even purchases from related parti…

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 179/IND/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2021

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

Section 12ASection 132

…All the findings of the CIT are based on suspicion and suspicion alone and without any cogent material to support his findings, hence the false and baseless findings be quashed. The Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Mathew reported in (1978) 42 STC 348 (SC) held “Strong suspicion, strange coincidence and grave doubts cannot take the place of legal proof.” This decision has been referred to and relied upon by the Jurisdictional Appellate Tribunal, Indore in the case of Asha Devi Goyal & Others Vs. ACIT reported in 32 ITC 386/394 (Ind). 13. Submissions to contradict the allegation of Rs. 41000000…

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…ace of evidence. Following judicial pronouncements cited before the ld. CIT(A) have been totally ignored by the ld. CIT(A):- Gist at PB S. No. Case law Page 1 CIT v/s. Daulat Ram (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) 79 2 State of Kerala v/s. M.M. Mathew and Another (1978) 42 STC 348 (SC) 79 3 Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 79 4 Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) 80 Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), 5 80-81 Calcutta & Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) 10. No additions can be made on the basis of statements of third parties and documents found fr…

ITO, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S RAY STEELS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 669/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena A Pillai, JM ITA No. 669/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITO, Vs Ray Steels, Ward 2(2), 12, Bihari Nagar, Ghaziabad. Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. AAKFR8283Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DR Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Date of Hearing : Date of Pronouncement : 07.12.2015 19.01.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-Ghaziabad vide his order dated 23/11/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 on the follo…