Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 131.

Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab

Q: How many judgments cite Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab (12 ITR 393), spanning 2016 to 2025.

12 ITR 393Reported decision1944#2406 most cited

What is Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab authority for?

Tax authorities must observe principles of natural justice by disclosing all adverse material to the assessee, allowing rebuttal, and permitting the assessee to produce their own evidence; failure to do so invalidates the assessment.

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

Also referred to as

Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT · Seth Gurmukh Singh v. CIT · 12 ITR 393 · natural justice · fair hearing · disclosure of information · opportunity to rebut · production of evidence · assessment procedure · section 143(3) · section 147 · section 148 · evidence in tax proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 131 Section 133A Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115be proximate nexus section 91 preponderance of probability violation of natural justice creditworthiness of the creditor addition under section 68 section 148a(d)income-tax officer commissioner (appeals)principal commissioner of income-tax section 131

Judgments citing Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

…ted to produce in support of case constituted a violation of the fundamental rules of justice and called for interference on our part. 4. SETH GURUMUKH The Tribunal violated certain fundamental SINGH v. CIT [1944] rules of justice in reaching its conclusions. 12 ITR 393 Firstly, it did not disclose to the assesse what information had been supplied to it by the departmental representative. Next, it did not give any opportunity to the assesse to rebut the material furnished to it by him, and lastly, it declined to take all the material that the assesse wanted to produce in support of its case. The result was that t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

ITA 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…dence Act, 1872 and may be merely\nsecondary or hearsay evidence within the meaning of that Act, provided\nthe assessee's attention has been drawn to that information or material\nand the rules of natural justice are not violated [Seth Gurmukh Singh\nV/s. CIT 12 ITR 393, 425 (Lah)].\n\nAt the same time, material gathered in the assessment\nproceedings of one person is not legal evidence in the assessment of\nanother person [N.S. Choodamani V/s. CIT 35 ITR 676 (Ker). Similarly,\nevidence brought on record without the knowledge of the assessee and\nused against him without giving him an opportunity to rebut it offe…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…l even though it may not be 'evidence' within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and may be merely the assessee's attention has been drawn to that information or material and the rules of natural justice are not violated [Seth Gurmukh Singh V/s. CIT 12 ITR 393, 425 (Lah)]. At the same time, material gathered in the assessment proceedings of one person is not legal evidence in the assessment of another person [N.S. Choodamani V/s. CIT 35 ITR 676 (Ker). Similarly, evidence brought on record without the knowledge of the assessee and used against him without giving him an opportunity to rebut it offends the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

ITA 4866/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.302/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2017-18 cuke Suwalka and Suwalka Properties Asst. Commissioner of Vs. and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Bundi Road, Kunhari Ladpura, Central Circle, Kota. Kota. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCS 7054 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :Sh.…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…ials which the assesse wanted to produce in support of case constituted a violation of the fundamental rules of justice and called for interference on our part. 4. SETH GURUMUKH SINGH v. The Tribunal violated certain fundamental rules of justice in CIT [1944] 12 ITR 393 reaching its conclusions. Firstly, it did not disclose to the assesse what information had been supplied to it by the departmental representative. Next, it did not give any opportunity to the assesse to rebut the material furnished to it by him, and lastly, it declined to take all the material that the assesse wanted to produce in support of its c…

SMT. ADESH AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3281/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148

…ust be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject has been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab [1944] 12 ITR 393 ." (p. 776) 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs.55,40,000/- in the hands of the assessee on merits. 10. The Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee was stated to be not pressed by the ld. AR a…

SHRI PATEL ENTERPRISES,,KORBA(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- KORBA,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in terms of our observations as discussed herein above

ITA 112/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.112/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) M/S Patel Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-Korba A-3, Vikas Complex, First Floor, Power House Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan No. : Aajfm 0718 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 251

…s and make the impugned assessment without reference to any evidence. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the same. The rule of Law on this subject has been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore HC in Seth Gurmukh Singh v. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393 (Lah.) [ Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC)]. It was observed by the SC in Dy. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. (1967) 20 STC 520 that "in all cases of taxation the burden of proving necessary ingredients laid down by law to justify taxation is upon the authorities…

SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH JADON,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 40/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gyanendra Singh Jadon Dcit-1(1) M-4, Radio Colony, Bhopal बनाम Indore /Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aespj9459E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147

…must be something more than more where suspicion to support the assessment u/s 23(3)". The rule of law on this subject has been fully and rightly stated by Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab 1944 12 ITR 393. Similar view was also taken by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bansal Strips V/s ACIT (supra) observing that "the A.O cannot first make certain conjectures and surmises and thereafter deemed provisions based on such conjectures and surmises". In the absence of material as to the nature of ownership of the transaction, undisclosed income cannot be a…

DCIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S B. CHOPDA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…t all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject has, in our opinion, been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393 …….(782) 41. In the present case we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal has recorded a categorical, findings of fact that the applicant did not made purchases the extent he has shown. The purchases in question have conclusively been provided to be bogus. If the purchases of the gas cylinders have not been made…

RAGHAV SOFTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 20(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…Smt. Kiran Navin Dash/ an assessment without suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3). 'The rule of law on this subject has, in our opinion, been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v, CIT [1944] 12 ITR 393. . . (782). 37 41. In the present case we find that the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal has recorded a categorical, finding of fact that the applicant did not make purchases to the extent he has shown The purchases in question have conclusively been provided to be bogus. If the purchases of the gas cylinders have not be…

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

…ust be something more than more where suspicion to support the assessment u/s 23(3)”. The rule of law on this subject has been fully and rightly stated by Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab 1944 12 ITR 393. Similar view was also taken by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bansal Strips V/s ACIT (supra) observing that “the A.O cannot first make certain conjectures and surmises and thereafter deemed provisions based on such conjectures and surmises”. In the absence of material as to the nature of ownership of the transaction, undisclosed income cannot be…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SAMANTA ORGANICS P. LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…t all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject has, in our opinion, been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 393 ….” (782) 41. In the present case we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal has recorded a categorical, finding of fact that the applicant did not make purchases to the extent he has shown. The purchases in question have conclusively been provided to be bogus. ITA. Nos.3229 to 3231/M/2019 A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12…

AMIT MAFATLAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19 (1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5793/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 5793/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Amit Mafatlal Shah The Asst. Commissioner Of 78/80 Gora Gandhi Building, Income Tax, Circle 19(1), बनाम/ Cp Tank Road, C.P. Tank Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 004 (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabps5009A अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.04.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…ng decision in support of this case. 1. M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006. 2. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Dav vs. CIT (37 ITR 28) (SC) 3. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 777 4. Seth Gurumukh Singh v. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393 5. Jai Karan Sharma vs. DCIT (2012) 23 taxmannc.com 300 (Delhi) 6. Hamish Engineering Industries (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 166 (Mum. Trib.) 7. Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 4 Taxman 29 (SC) 8. C Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) 9. The Ld. A.R. finally prayed that in view of the above facts and the ratio laid down in th…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 68

…asis of proper material or evidence. AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make assessment without reference to evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than mere suspicion to support the addition. Sheth Gurmukh Singh vs. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393. b. The rule of law on this subject has been well settled that estimate framed without giving the basis for their fixation is bad in law. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775. In the case of Brijbhusnan Lal Praduma Kumar v CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 the Apex Court held an estimate, must not be capricious but should have a reasonable…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ls Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (All.) (18) Khandelwal Trading Co. vs. ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 261 (JP) (19) Deoria Oxygen Company vs. CIT (2007) 160 Taxman 427 (ALL.) (20) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (21) Seth Gurmukh Singh vs. CIT (1994) 12 ITR 393 (22) Samurai Software P. Ltd., vs. CIT (2008) 299 ITR 324 (Raj.) (23) CIT vs. La Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (24) Indian Woolen Carpet Factory vs. ITAT (2002) 125 Taxman 763 (Raj.) (25) Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) 38 ACIT vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (2000) 74 ITD 92 (Mum). (27) Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs. CIT (1961)…

SHRI NARENDRA TRIPATHI,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 300/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT

Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…st be something more than more where suspicion to support the assessment u/s 23(3)”. The rule of law on this subject has been fully and rightly stated by Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab 1944 12 ITR 393. Similar view was also taken by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bansal Strips V/s ACIT (supra) observing that “the A.O cannot first make certain conjectures and surmises and thereafter deemed Smt. Seema Tripathi & Narendra Tripathi IT(SS)Nos.101to102/Ind/2017,IT(SS)Nos.115to119/Ind/17&ITA.No.300/Ind/17 provisions based on such conjectures and surm…

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

…must be something more than more where suspicion to support the assessment u/s 23(3)”. The rule of law on this subject has been fully and rightly stated by Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab 1944 12 ITR 393. Similar view was also taken by Delhi Tribunal in the case of Bansal Strips V/s ACIT (supra) observing that “the A.O cannot first make certain conjectures and surmises and thereafter deemed provisions based on such conjectures and surmises”. In the absence of material as to the nature of ownership of the transaction, undisclosed income cannot be a…

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

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3