Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

37 ITR 271Supreme Court of India1959#107 most cited

What is Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT authority for?

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

567

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT · suspicion not proof · no addition on surmises · conjectures and suspicion · burden of proof income tax · Section 68 cash credits · Section 132(4) statement · assessment without evidence · Section 37(1) business expenditure · genuineness of transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 148Section 153ASection 69C

Issues it is cited on

price riggingdumb documentssection 132(4a)statement under section 132(4)bogus long term capital gainsection 292cretracted statementloose paperson-moneybogus ltcgsection 132(4)penny stock

Judgments citing Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

ITO (E) WARD 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ACHARYA SHRI VIJAY SURENDRA SURISHWARJI JAIN TATWA GYAN SHALA, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2334/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

…spicion. Similarly, in CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the onus to prove that a particular receipt is income lies on the Revenue. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) / [2002] 122 Taxman 437 (Gujarat) has held that once the assessee has furnished complete details along with supporting evidences, no addition can be made without bringing contrary mate…

JCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. PLATINUM WORLD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

ITA 130/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.130/RPR/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Platinum World Hospitality Private Limited Nayan Tara, Opportunity. C.M. House, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN: AAFCP6488B ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क"…

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 335/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.329/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.330/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.333/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.334/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.335/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal DCIT (Centra…

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 334/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.329/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.330/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.333/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.334/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.335/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal DCIT (Centra…

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 333/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.329/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.330/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.333/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.334/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.335/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal DCIT (Centra…

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL, AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 330/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.329/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.330/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.333/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.334/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.335/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal DCIT (Centra…

SANGEETA AGGARWAL,SANGEETA AGGARWAL, AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 CHANDIGARH, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand allowed on merits accordingly

ITA 329/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.330/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.335/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8835-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132(4)Section 153A(1)(b)Section 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.329/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.330/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.333/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.334/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.335/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal DCIT (Centra…

PRAMOD BASAVARAJ ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), MYSURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2384/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vageesh Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

…as rejected the explanation of the assessee without conducting basic enquiry from the person who allegedly returned the money to the assessee. 11.6 We also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) in 37 ITR 271 (SC). In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the conclusions of the Assessing Officer cannot be based merely on surmises and conjectures and that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Though the facts involved in that case were different from the facts of the present case, the core legal principle laid down by t…

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KALAWATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING P LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 134/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…td. discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In this connection I refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale prices are at variance with the circle rates fixed by the Registration authorities of the Government in most cases and the general impression is that cash would hav…

M/S FAIRDEAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), DELHI

In the result all the three grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2793/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Fairdeal Information Income Tax Officer, Technology Private Limited, Ward-9(1), 116A, First Floor, Somdutt Vs. New Delhi. Chamber-1, 5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aaacf9581G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Department By Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

…ficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. M/s Fairdeal Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 19. It is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NOUVELLE SECURITIES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4852/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 37Section 68Section 69C

…y discharged the burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. Page 9 of 12 CO No. 21/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2016-17] Nouvelle Securities 40. It is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…a vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Compa…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…a vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Compa…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…a vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT, Bombay iv) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (extracted at pages 332-333 of Paper Book) v) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand BhagatAmbica Ram v CIT vi) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Compa…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. vs. CIT [37 ITR 271] (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 6.2.21. I find that the facts of the instant case at hand is quite similar to the facts discussed by the Hon. jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income tax vs. Sreeleathers in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 435 (Calcutta). The facts of the said cas…

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 987/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…6 ITR 736 (SC) ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 52. Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that no addition can be made taking into accoun…

MRS. JIGNA HIREN RAMBHIA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5033/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 391Section 68

…e strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT 37 ITR 271 had held that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. 11. Whereas the AO had relied upon various statements of people who have discussed the general modus operandi in providing bogus accommodation entries but the said statements are general and vague and the name of the assessee is not specified in their statements. Even the ob…

ADVANCED COMPUTERS AND MOBILES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

ITA 3212/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Advanced Computers & Mobiles Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai Room No. 533, 5Th Floor, India Private Limited Vs Unit No. 9, Ground Floor, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Yusuf Building, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aamca5425A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 254(1)

…t by the AO, his action is arbitrary and reasonable. The addition is liable to 7 Advanced Computers and Mobiles India Private Limited be deleted. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the following decision:  Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs CIT (1959)37 ITR 271 (SC)  CIT vs Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 315 (SC)  H.R. Mehta vs ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom) 7. In support of ground no. 5, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has filed application for rectification under section 154 before assessing officer and explained that in the original return of income, the assessee inadvert…

AMPLEX PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGARTALA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 333/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245DSection 245D(4)Section 250

…nds is nothing but a figment of his imagination based on suspicion. However, it is an undisputed fact as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. [37 ITR 271 (SC)] Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT 137 ITR 151(SC)] Apart from the above, it may be noted at this juncture that share application money to the tune of Rs.1,22,00,000/- was received by the assessee during preceding financial years and not during the relevant financial year. Reference is invited here to the chart giving details of share applicatio…

OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRE CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 49/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

…he had assumed such facts during this year also. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) holding the Ld. AO was not entitled to make guess work. In the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. (37 ITR 271), it was held that suspicion could not take the place of proof. The said decision was applied by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Anupam Kapoor (166 Taxman 178). The impugned addition was merely on conjecture and surmises and without any findings of fact against the 15 assessee. In the case of Omay Salay Mohammed Sait (37 ITR 151…

Showing 1–20 of 567 · Page 1 of 29

...