Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT

66 ITR 462Supreme Court of India1967#1940 most cited

What is Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT authority for?

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal performs a judicial function under the Indian Income-tax Act, invested with authority to finally determine all questions of fact. When deciding an appeal, the Tribunal must consider all material facts with due care, record findings on all contentions, and maintain a judicial balance between the revenue and taxpayer claims. The power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 enables courts, including the Tribunal, to do substantial justice, with "sufficient cause" being an elastic expression.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT · Udhavdas Kewalram 1967 SC · ITAT judicial function · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal fact finding · questions of fact finality · condonation of delay section 5 Limitation Act · sufficient cause · ITAT appellate powers · section 260A · judicial balance Tribunal

Sections most often in play

Section 12ASection 80G(5)Section 106Section 119Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)Section 12AASection 131Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 66section 119(1)section 106section 52pptpermanent account numbersection 80g(5)(iii)trccreditworthiness of the creditorsection 260section 260a

Judgments citing Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT

Rudra Developers, Valsad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.395/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rudra Developers, Vs The Principal Commissioner Pali Hill No.4, Tithal Road, Valsad. . Of Income Tax, Valsad. [Pan: Aadfr 8700 K] अपीलाथ" / Assessee ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ts possession. The department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation. Convert good proof into no proof. It is within the range of these principles that such cases have to be decided. (emphasis supplied). (b)Udhavdas Kewalram vs. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 462 (SC) “It is for the income-tax authorities to prove that a particular receipt is taxable. In deciding whether an item of receipt is taxable as income, the Tribunal may consider the evidence in the light of the statements made by the assessee, his conduct and the probabilities, but in arriving at its conclusion there must be a fair and reasonably f…

Dolphin Goods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(1), Kolkata

ITA 240/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 127Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In 13 Dolphin Goods (P) Ltd., AY 2009-10 deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant…

J.C.I.T.(OSD), Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Werit Global Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 55/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

ITA 2191/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

JCIT(OSD), Cir.-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 115/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 20/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

Fizaan Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-15(1), Kolkata

ITA 166/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 12 | P a g e Fizaan Commotrade P…

M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. I.to., Ward-2(1), Burdman

ITA 501/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice Income Tax Officer, बनाम & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), Aayakar / Vill-Kalsi, P.O. V/S. Bhawan, Court Chotkhanda, P.S. Memari, Compound, Burdwan- Burdwan, Pin-713146 713101 [Pan No.Aabcl 6230 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

M/S Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

ITA 2020/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 250Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

M/S. Matarani Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 15(1), Kolkata

ITA 343/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(2)

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

Rahul Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-46, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 77/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 131Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income­tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 822/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

DCIT, Circle-2, Asansol vs. M/S. Diamond Bottling Plant Company, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 894/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.894/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Circle-2, Asansol Vs. M/S Diamond Bottling Plant Company C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Seven Brothers Lodge, P.O-Buroshibtala, P.S- Chinsurah, Hooghly, - 712105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefd5674R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Asansol Dated 30.01.2019 Passed In Case No.58/Cit(A)/Asl/Dcit/Cir-2/Asl/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Seeks To Revive Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Loans Of Rs.11,85,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Which Has Been Reversed To The Extent Of Rs.5,26,50,251/- In The Cit(A)’S Order. Its Case Accordingly Is That The Assessing Officer Had Rightly Added The Assessee’S Total Loan Amount Of Rs. 11,85,00,000/- Raised From Four Entities M/S Diamond Carbon Pvt. Ltd., M/S Mukherjee Capital Pvt. Ltd., M/S Wimper Trading & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & M/S Mukherjee Farms Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

Tradelink Carrying Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-4(1), Kolkata

ITA 1636/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Am ]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

Kanchan Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd., Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Jalpaiguri

ITA 2411/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini Am]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Savitri Share and Securities Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1703/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

Bidit Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata

ITA 579/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.579/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Mukherjee, Addl. CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UdhavdasKewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force o…

Shri Ashish Tandon, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1954/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 54FSection 55

…ted”. It is in this backdrop that he refers to the judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deepak Nitrate Limited Vs CIT [(2008) 175 Taxman 130 (Guj)], Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [(1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC)], Udhavedas Kevalram Vs CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 462 (SC)], CIT Vs Daulatram Rawalmull [(19730 87 ITR 349 (SC)], CIT Vs Orrissa Corporation Pvt Ltd [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)], Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)]. Learned counsel then pointed out that the genuineness of the above agreement is also accepted, by implication, by Dhanya Thakkar who invested in 30% shareholdings aft…

ITO, WD-1(1), Siliguri vs. M/S Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1041/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri..………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd..……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent Situvita Tea Factory Bidhan Nagar Siliguri [Pan : Aabcc 0744 P] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 27/05/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 22/09/2012, Disclosing Total Business Income At Rs.3,71,534/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 30/03/2015, Making An Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, U/S 68 Of The Act. This Was Set Off Against Carried Forward Losses & Gross Total Balance Was Determined At –Nil- Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [19671 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must In deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. 10. We find considerable force of…

ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Delight Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1755/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1755/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rabin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…so the Tribunal committed grave error in law in upsetting the judgment in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UdhavdasKewalram v. CIT [1967) 66 ITR 462. In this judgment it is noticed that the Supreme Court as proposition of law held that the Tribunal must in deciding an appeal, consider with due care, all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. M/s Delight GrihNirman Pvt. Ltd.…