Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

DCIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bajrang Lal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…modation entries, as had been alleged by the A.O. In fact, any suspicion, however so ever strong, that the Department may have, cannot take place of proof as clearly laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271.” 3.12 Further, insofar as the scrip of Jackson Investment Ltd. in the case of Sri Bachh Raj Bamalwa for A.Y. 2015-16 (Assessee at Sl. No. 4 supra) is concerned, the following further submissions are made in addition to the above: (i) That, the Ld. A.O, in making the impugned addition, has relied upon the purported statements of promoters, allege…

DCIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Bajrang Lal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…modation entries, as had been alleged by the A.O. In fact, any suspicion, however so ever strong, that the Department may have, cannot take place of proof as clearly laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271.” 3.12 Further, insofar as the scrip of Jackson Investment Ltd. in the case of Sri Bachh Raj Bamalwa for A.Y. 2015-16 (Assessee at Sl. No. 4 supra) is concerned, the following further submissions are made in addition to the above: (i) That, the Ld. A.O, in making the impugned addition, has relied upon the purported statements of promoters, allege…

M/S. Khadi Grammodhyog Pratisthan, Bikaner vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, Ward-1(2), Bangaluru / Bikaner

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [19631 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good "proof into no proof". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Co Vs CIT 37 ITR 271 has held that the surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion are the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 5 M/s Khadi Grammodhyog Prathisthan (P&H) also held that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Hon…

Shri Kuldeep Kumar, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bikaner

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2010-11 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar S/O Ram Income Tax Officer, Swaroop, Chak-13 Kyd Vs Ward-1(4), Bikaner Khajuwala, Bikaner-3334023 Pan: Brkpk2021B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Suresh Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.05.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Dated 21.11.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- 1. The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal Against The Law & Without Any Application Of Mind, Therefore, Is Liable For Quash. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar

…Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good "proof into no proof". Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Co Vs CIT 37 ITR 271 has held that the surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion are the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P &H) also held that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Honorable, please also look into the work…

Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

…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] held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 8.1. Respectfully following the above judgments of the Jurisdictional High Court and that of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by ld. CIT(A) and deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 and u/s. 69…

Ankur Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

…hange then it is irrelevant that who is buyer of shares sold by the assessee. Therefore, the AO merely acts on suspicion not on any evidence. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Umarchand Shaw & Bros. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 37 ITR 271 wherein it has been held that suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. were purchased by the assessee in physical form. In various investigation carried out by the department it was found that the shares of M/s Surabhi Ch…

Smt. Sheela Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO-5(5), Indore

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

…hange then it is irrelevant that who is buyer of shares sold by the assessee. Therefore, the AO merely acts on suspicion not on any evidence. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Umarchand Shaw & Bros. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 37 ITR 271 wherein it has been held that suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. were purchased by the assessee in physical form. In various investigation carried out by the department it was found that the shares of M/s Surabhi Ch…

Smt. Sheela Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO-5(5), Indore

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

…hange then it is irrelevant that who is buyer of shares sold by the assessee. Therefore, the AO merely acts on suspicion not on any evidence. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Umarchand Shaw & Bros. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 37 ITR 271 wherein it has been held that suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. were purchased by the assessee in physical form. In various investigation carried out by the department it was found that the shares of M/s Surabhi Ch…

M/S. Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Satia Industries Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Malour Road, Vill. Rupana, Assessment Centre, Distt. Muktsar. Assessment Unit, I.T. [PAN:-AACCS7233A] Department New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Sh. P.N. Arora & Ashwani Juneja, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Girish Bali, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 17.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal o…