Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

37 ITR 271Supreme Court of India1959#112 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 366,339 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

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…iraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 26 of 62 (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, 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 accou…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 69B

…vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, 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 account noto…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…iraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 26 of 62 (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, 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 accou…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…iraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 26 of 62 (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 4.33 Further, 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 accou…

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…6 (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) ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod ITA Nos.174 & 175/Bang/2024 MKH Infrastructure, Kasargod Page 26 of 62 (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 8.11. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the…

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…6 (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) ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod ITA Nos.174 & 175/Bang/2024 MKH Infrastructure, Kasargod Page 26 of 62 (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 8.11. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the…

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 271/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

…by any unaccounted assets and investments unearthed during the course of search, but solely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. This principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). Further, the assessee has brought on record various reasons to prove that the alleged scribbling pad is part of purported statement and declaration obtained by the search team during the course of search, but it is not a cash book maintained by the assessee to record unaccounted cash introduction. Had it been the case of the AO that the alleg…

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 270/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

…by any unaccounted assets and investments unearthed during the course of search, but solely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. This principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). Further, the assessee has brought on record various reasons to prove that the alleged scribbling pad is part of purported statement and declaration obtained by the search team during the course of search, but it is not a cash book maintained by the assessee to record unaccounted cash introduction. Had it been the case of the AO that the alleg…

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

…by any unaccounted assets and investments unearthed during the course of search, but solely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. This principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). Further, the assessee has brought on record various reasons to prove that the alleged scribbling pad is part of purported statement and declaration obtained by the search team during the course of search, but it is not a cash book maintained by the assessee to record unaccounted cash introduction. Had it been the case of the AO that the alleg…

M/S. Hindusthan Bawa Builders, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 268/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

…by any unaccounted assets and investments unearthed during the course of search, but solely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. This principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). Further, the assessee has brought on record various reasons to prove that the alleged scribbling pad is part of purported statement and declaration obtained by the search team during the course of search, but it is not a cash book maintained by the assessee to record unaccounted cash introduction. Had it been the case of the AO that the alleg…

DCIT, Central Circle - 3, Coimbatore vs. Smt.Vanitha Mohan, Coimbatre

In the result, the appeal by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 498/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.267/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri D. Vijay Mohan, The Dcit, No.232, Tea Estates, Central Circle-3, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aatpm 1202 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.268/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ad actually paid Rs.96 lacs so as to justify the impugned addition. It is settled proposition of law that suspicion howsoever strong it may be cannot take the place of proof or evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Vs CIT (37 ITR 271). For these reasons, the addition of Rs.96 lacs made by the AO is directed to be deleted. ITA Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2022 (AY 2013-14) ITA Nos.497 & 498/Chny/2022 (AY 2013-14) Shri D. Vijay Mohan & Smt. Vanitha Mohan :: 40 :: 35. Overall therefore, the additions of Rs.2,71,00,000/- each made in the hands of both the assessee and her spouse in the re…

DCIT, Central Circle - 3, Coimbatore vs. Shri D Vijay Mohan, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 497/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.267/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri D. Vijay Mohan, The Dcit, No.232, Tea Estates, Central Circle-3, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aatpm 1202 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.268/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ad actually paid Rs.96 lacs so as to justify the impugned addition. It is settled proposition of law that suspicion howsoever strong it may be cannot take the place of proof or evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Vs CIT (37 ITR 271). For these reasons, the addition of Rs.96 lacs made by the AO is directed to be deleted. ITA Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2022 (AY 2013-14) ITA Nos.497 & 498/Chny/2022 (AY 2013-14) Shri D. Vijay Mohan & Smt. Vanitha Mohan :: 40 :: 35. Overall therefore, the additions of Rs.2,71,00,000/- each made in the hands of both the assessee and her spouse in the re…

Vanitha Mohan, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 268/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.267/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri D. Vijay Mohan, The Dcit, No.232, Tea Estates, Central Circle-3, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aatpm 1202 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.268/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ad actually paid Rs.96 lacs so as to justify the impugned addition. It is settled proposition of law that suspicion howsoever strong it may be cannot take the place of proof or evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Vs CIT (37 ITR 271). For these reasons, the addition of Rs.96 lacs made by the AO is directed to be deleted. ITA Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2022 (AY 2013-14) ITA Nos.497 & 498/Chny/2022 (AY 2013-14) Shri D. Vijay Mohan & Smt. Vanitha Mohan :: 40 :: 35. Overall therefore, the additions of Rs.2,71,00,000/- each made in the hands of both the assessee and her spouse in the re…

Vijay Mohan, Coimbaore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-(3)(I/C), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 267/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.267/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri D. Vijay Mohan, The Dcit, No.232, Tea Estates, Central Circle-3, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 018. [Pan: Aatpm 1202 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.268/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ad actually paid Rs.96 lacs so as to justify the impugned addition. It is settled proposition of law that suspicion howsoever strong it may be cannot take the place of proof or evidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Vs CIT (37 ITR 271). For these reasons, the addition of Rs.96 lacs made by the AO is directed to be deleted. ITA Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2022 (AY 2013-14) ITA Nos.497 & 498/Chny/2022 (AY 2013-14) Shri D. Vijay Mohan & Smt. Vanitha Mohan :: 40 :: 35. Overall therefore, the additions of Rs.2,71,00,000/- each made in the hands of both the assessee and her spouse in the re…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2017-18 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly known as Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd.), # 18-2-16/4, DCIT Mukka Corporate House, First Cross Central Circle-1 Vs. N.G. Road, Attavar Mangaluru Mangaluru 575 001 Karnataka PAN NO : AAGCM8310E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R.…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tvs Investments Lrd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

…actions resulting in long term material gains in the hand of the assessee but there is no cogent material or evidence to indicate that the impugned sale proceeds reflected unaccounted income of the assessee." 14.5 In the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (37 ITR 271), the Supreme Court has held that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof. From the entire appreciation of evidence, the AO has failed to establish that the assessee has sold the shares at higher price. 14.6 The Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713), observed that "the amount cannot be assessed as un…

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (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) 13.47. Further, 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 acc…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (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) 13.47. Further, 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 acc…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (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) 13.47. Further, 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 acc…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (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) 13.47. Further, 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 acc…