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 366,369 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

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 237/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1336/MUM/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) Shri Shripal Raj Lodha v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsiani Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAJPL2949L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 236 & 237/MUM/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2016-17) v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) Smt Sarita Lodha C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsian…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 236/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1336/MUM/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) Shri Shripal Raj Lodha v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsiani Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAJPL2949L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 236 & 237/MUM/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2016-17) v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) Smt Sarita Lodha C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsian…

Shri. Shripal Raj Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1336/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1336/MUM/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) Shri Shripal Raj Lodha v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsiani Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAJPL2949L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 236 & 237/MUM/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2016-17) v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) Smt Sarita Lodha C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsian…

Smt. Shruti Lodha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 621/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1336/MUM/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) Shri Shripal Raj Lodha v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsiani Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAJPL2949L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 236 & 237/MUM/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2016-17) v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) Smt Sarita Lodha C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsian…

Smt. Shruti Lodha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 620/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1336/MUM/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) Shri Shripal Raj Lodha v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsiani Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAJPL2949L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 236 & 237/MUM/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2016-17) v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) Smt Sarita Lodha C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsian…

Shri. Shripal Raj Lodha, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1336/MUM/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) Shri Shripal Raj Lodha v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsiani Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAJPL2949L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 236 & 237/MUM/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2016-17) v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) Smt Sarita Lodha C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsian…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 618/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1336/MUM/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) Shri Shripal Raj Lodha v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsiani Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAJPL2949L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 236 & 237/MUM/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2016-17) v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(4) Smt Sarita Lodha C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS 19th Floor, Air India Building 807, Tulsian…

Kavita Pawan Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7931/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7931/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Kavita Pawan Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1139-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…sion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

Heena Nilesh Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7930/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7930/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Heena Nilesh Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-8463-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…sion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

Jitendra Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7928/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7928/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7929/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Jitendra Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building / Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6316-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…sion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

Pawan Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7927/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7927/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Pawan Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6311-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…sion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

Beena Jitendra Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7926/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7926/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Beena Jitendra Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agfpk-4477-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…sion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

Akshita Pankaj Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7925/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7925/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Akshita Pankaj Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1141-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…sion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7923/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7923/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7924/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-2207-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…sion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikvat Through L/H Pankaj V Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7921/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7921/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7922/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), 1915, 19Th Floor (Through L/H Shri Pankaj V.Kikavat) बिाम/ 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Air India Building Vs. Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Nariman Point Mumbai-400 077 Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6317-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…Kikavat Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7919/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7919/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7920/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-8464-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…sion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which r…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…unsel reiterated that suspicion can never take the place of proof. To support such argument, reliance was placed on the decision of CIT, Central-II, Calcutta Versus 66 1989 178 ITR 446 (P&H) 67 37 ITR 271 SC ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 63 of 150 Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. Ltd.68 dated 7th October, 2017. Reliance was placed on the decision in CIT Versus Smt. Jamna Devi Agarwala69, wherein the Court had distinguished the decision in Sumati Dayal. In support of his contention that the transactions were genuine as document…

Rakesh Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-18(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1775/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

…rictly 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. 16. We find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has been guided by the report of the investigation wing prepared with respect to bogus capital gains transactions. However we do not find that, the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A), have brought out an…

Shri Balveer Ram, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 54

…e said property and the assessee tried to prove the source and supporting evidences. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 & Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) wherein it was held that "even if circumstances raise a suspicion, suspicion cannot take the place of evidence". 8. We also observed from perusal of the record, that the claim is not disputed but the Section under which claimed deduction is disputed. That the CIT(A) allowed the Claim U/s 54F instead of Section 54. The basic conditions for cl…

Shri Balveer Ram, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1140/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 54

…e said property and the assessee tried to prove the source and supporting evidences. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 & Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) wherein it was held that "even if circumstances raise a suspicion, suspicion cannot take the place of evidence". 8. We also observed from perusal of the record, that the claim is not disputed but the Section under which claimed deduction is disputed. That the CIT(A) allowed the Claim U/s 54F instead of Section 54. The basic conditions for cl…