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

Pooja Mahendra Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…charged 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) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. In this connection we 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 wou…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Cable Industries, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4145/Del/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4145/DEL/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) ACIT Vs. National Cable Industries Circle-52(1), Room No. 1405, K-51, Connaught Circus 14th Floor, E-2 Block, Dr. S.P. New Delhi Mukherjee Civic Centre PAN : AAAFN5132E New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Surendra Meena, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Date of Hearing 05.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 26.09.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against the order dat…

Indo Office Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3176/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 132Section 133Section 147Section 148

…ct which have not been doubted or rejected by the Assessing Officer. The additions are merely on the suspicions and lacks evidence. The same are bad in law in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC) wherein it is settled law that suspicion however strong it is cannot take place of the evidence. Further the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288. 9. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the pa…

DCIT 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Mahesh Banasal, Indore

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue and Assessee

ITA 499/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh Bansal, Income Tax 5(1), 44, Manish Bagh, Indore Agrawal Nagar, Indore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…jlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs, CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs, CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); 11 Mahesh Bansal ITA No.499/2018 & C.O.No.10/Ind/2019 Umacharan Shaw& Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) & Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs, CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) also applies to the facts and circumstances of the case because the adverse inference drawn by the AO was purely based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and does not have sanction of law. The principal laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 289/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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 is 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, 90 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. howsoever stron…

Nitin Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 128/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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 is 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, 90 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. howsoever stron…

M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 127/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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 is 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, 90 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. howsoever stron…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…e to rebut the evidences furnished by the assessee and made the addition on suspicion and speculations. It is submitted that it is settled law that suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of evidence. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) ii) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT 37 ITR 151(SC) iii) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay 26 ITR 736 (SC) iv) Lal Chand Bhagat…

Smt.Geeta Khare, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 4267/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Geeta Khare A C I T, Circle – 3 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan Vs. Mahatma Phule Road Dombivali (W), Mumbai 421202 Pan – Ahopk7823N Appellant Respondent Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (Huf) Income Tax Officer 4(4) B-5, Sai Garden Chs Ashar It Park Near Dhuri Service Centre Vs. Road No. 16Z, Midc Dewanman, Vasai (W) Thane (W) 400061 Mumbai 401202 Pan – Aauhs1747L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent By: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am These Appeals Filed By The Assessees Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Cit(A)-3, Nashik Dated 02.04.2018 & Cit(A)-3, Thane Dated 01.11.2017 Respectively & They Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. As Identical Issues Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre Are Involved In Both The Appeals, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh
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 any…

Rohit Jalan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2205/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…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. In this connection we refer to the general view on the topic of conveyance of immovable properties. The rates/sale price 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 ha…

Suresh Kumar Sarda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sampat Kumar Kabra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, D.R

…a genuine loss. The assessing officer appears to have made the disallowance merely on suspicion and, suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take the place of evidence as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros Co vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271. Therefore, considering the entire facts of the case, I’m not inclined to agree with the conclusion of the AO that loss of Rs.14,89,56,190/- disallowed by her is not the real loss but an engineered loss. More so when she herself has accepted the loss of Rs.4,47,33,275/- without giving any substantial reason. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 5.…

Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage P Ltd, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aligarh

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…nable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted.” Further we invited our attention to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Vs. CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 271 wherein it has been held that “suspicion however strong cannot take place of legal proof.” 15. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the revenue relied upon of the order of CIT(A), Aligarh and stated that the AO has rightly reopened the assessment on the basis of material available with him as being supplied by the investigation wing of the department and t…

Shri Gopal Soni, Mandsaur vs. Addll. CIT, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 714/IND/2017[02-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…d failed to examine while considering evidentiary value of the diary. No such alleged addition can be made on the basis of surmises, conjecture & surmises. Relied on :- (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton mills vs. CIT - 26 ITR 775 SC (2) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT - 37 ITR 271 SC (3) CBI vs. V. C. Shukla- 3 SCC 410 SC Your honours further kind attention is also drawn towards the facts that assessee was gunshot in Year 2004 and due to the said incident he was paralyzed from 2004 and confined to bed and his jewelry business also closed and is surviving on God mercy only and on verge of so many non curable deceases and no…

Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, Mandsaur vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 713/IND/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…d failed to examine while considering evidentiary value of the diary. No such alleged addition can be made on the basis of surmises, conjecture & surmises. Relied on :- (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton mills vs. CIT - 26 ITR 775 SC (2) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT - 37 ITR 271 SC (3) CBI vs. V. C. Shukla- 3 SCC 410 SC Your honours further kind attention is also drawn towards the facts that assessee was gunshot in Year 2004 and due to the said incident he was paralyzed from 2004 and confined to bed and his jewelry business also closed and is surviving on God mercy only and on verge of so many non curable deceases and no…

Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, Mandsaur vs. Commissioner of Inco Me-Tax, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 712/IND/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…d failed to examine while considering evidentiary value of the diary. No such alleged addition can be made on the basis of surmises, conjecture & surmises. Relied on :- (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton mills vs. CIT - 26 ITR 775 SC (2) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT - 37 ITR 271 SC (3) CBI vs. V. C. Shukla- 3 SCC 410 SC Your honours further kind attention is also drawn towards the facts that assessee was gunshot in Year 2004 and due to the said incident he was paralyzed from 2004 and confined to bed and his jewelry business also closed and is surviving on God mercy only and on verge of so many non curable deceases and no…

ACIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Middle Earth Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross

ITA 5753/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Year:-2011-12 Acit-13(3)(2), M/S Middle Earth Room No.229, 02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Enterprises, Aayakar Bhavan, 19/40, C-2, Seksaria Vs. M. K. Road, Industrial Estate, Off Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaqfm8445I

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…money or money's worth back. Without proving that money has been received back, such addtion/disallowance is not permitted as held in the following cases:- (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Vs. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) (ii) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. VS. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) (iii) Laichand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [199] 37 ITR 288 (SC) 6.19. The assessing officer has referred to but not quoted the statements denying transactions with the appellant by the impugned parties. It is also not mentioned whether such statements were provided to the appellant. The appellant has argued that the main reason behind the part…

M/S Bihari Lal Malpani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…assessment order which were based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures only although it is settled law that no assessment can be made on suspicion howsoever strong it may be. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Brothers vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that " ..... there are many surmises and .conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the 'place of proof in these matters ..... ".' Reliance in this connection is placed on the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) wherein the Hon'bl…

Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

ITA 1255/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ld AR, it is trite law that the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference was made to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC, , Umacharan Shaw 37 ITR 271 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait 37 ITR 151. The ld AR submitted that the entire case of the revenue is based upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption or suspicion howsoever strong it may be, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link t…

Navin Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

ITA 1254/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ld AR, it is trite law that the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference was made to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC, , Umacharan Shaw 37 ITR 271 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait 37 ITR 151. The ld AR submitted that the entire case of the revenue is based upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption or suspicion howsoever strong it may be, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gahoi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2710/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, DR
Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

…f Tin Number and also PAN number were submitted. Thus, without their being any contrary material, no disallowance of expenses could have been made. In support strong reliance was placed by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Ors. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). However, the Ld. AO had confirmed the said addition. Simply on the ground of bills does not contain the requisite details like TIN No. Bill No. Etc. 29. Ld. CIT(A)after considering entire facts, accepted the assessee’s explanation that, once the payment has been made through account paying cheque and the bills contain complete address along…