SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES v. CIT

300 ITR 205Supreme Court of India2008#1175 most cited
97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sudarshan Silks & Sarees v. CIT · Sudarshan Silks SC · Section 153A · Section 132(1)(a) · Section 132(2) · search and seizure assessment · illegal payment · STPI unit · Section 10A · enduring benefit test · business transfer agreement

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES v. CIT

DCIT Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Satyam Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 6283/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadishdcit Cc-5(4), Mumbai Vs Satyam Realtors Private Ltd. Room No.436, 4Th Floor, Room No.4, 3Rd Floor Capri, Anant Kautilya Bhawan, Bandrakurla Kanekar Marg Bandra (East) Complex, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051 Pan:Aaccs7290P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None, Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Revenue Was Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-53, Mumbai [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 24.09.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250Section 43B

…dence or ignoring relevant evidence or against not properly weighing the evidence or against the evidence would be perverse and the order would be liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudarshan Silk & Sarees v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 169 Taxman 321 (SC) has laid down the attributes of perversity by holding that an order or finding is perverse on facts if it falls under any of the following categories: (a) The finding is without any evidence. (b) The finding is contrary to the evidence. (c) There is no direct nexus between the conclusion of fact and primary fact upon which tha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Raipur

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 455/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 455/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh, New Purena, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Ravigram, Ravigram S O, Civil Lines, Raipur, C. G., 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Ajnps2776H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69C

…to relevant facts on record, misread the evidence and its probative value thereby giving rise to perversity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), which itself gives rise to Question of Law as held in several case laws including in the case of Sudarshan Silk and Sarees 300 ITR 205 (SC)? 3. Any other ground which may be adducted at the time of hearing.” 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, engaged in the construction business, filed his Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) on 10.10.2022 declaring income of Rs.2,70,39,440/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment was com…

SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES v. CIT (300 ITR 205) — Cited in 97 Judgments | BharatTax