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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1511/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…ITAT, Pune in the case Anil NandkishoreGoyal, Jalna v. assessee, ITA No.1256/PN/2012 ii) ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Acchyalal Shaw vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No.1977/Kol/2008 iii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 271 iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. LTd, 5604 of 2010 v) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Interseas, ITA No.77 of 2009 vi) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Vipin Bhimraj Shah vs. ACIT, ITA No.6381 of 2014 vii) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Rajeev G Kalathil, ITA No.6727 of…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1510/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…ITAT, Pune in the case Anil NandkishoreGoyal, Jalna v. assessee, ITA No.1256/PN/2012 ii) ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Acchyalal Shaw vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No.1977/Kol/2008 iii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 271 iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. LTd, 5604 of 2010 v) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Interseas, ITA No.77 of 2009 vi) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Vipin Bhimraj Shah vs. ACIT, ITA No.6381 of 2014 vii) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Rajeev G Kalathil, ITA No.6727 of…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 116/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…ITAT, Pune in the case Anil NandkishoreGoyal, Jalna v. assessee, ITA No.1256/PN/2012 ii) ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Acchyalal Shaw vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No.1977/Kol/2008 iii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 271 iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. LTd, 5604 of 2010 v) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Interseas, ITA No.77 of 2009 vi) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Vipin Bhimraj Shah vs. ACIT, ITA No.6381 of 2014 vii) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Rajeev G Kalathil, ITA No.6727 of…

Jagdish B. Prajapati (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 548/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.548/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Jagdish B. Prajapati (Huf) Acit-24(2) बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers 311B, Urmila Chs Ltd., Kol Dongri Sahar Road, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel Vs. Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai - 400012 Pan No. : Aaehj-9503-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 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…