How many judgments cite Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT?

567 judgments on BharatTax cite Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (37 ITR 271), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 147, Section 68, Section 148.

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 366,005 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 132 Section 132(4)Section 147 Section 68 Section 148 Section 153A Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

price rigging dumb documents section 132(4a)statement under section 132(4)bogus long term capital gain section 292c retracted statement loose papers on-money bogus ltcg section 132(4)penny stock

Judgments citing Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

Ess Ismail Merchant, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3618/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…e where disallowance has been made on surmises, conjectures and suspicion and, it is settled law that, no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC). It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof : (a) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC). (b) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1951] 26 ITR 736 (SC). (c) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). (d) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37…

Paliwal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…of personal user etc were there. An allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw v/s CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC). All the disallowances deserve deletion on this submission alone. M/s. Paliwal Jewellers. 3. Businessman is the best judge: It is settled that a businessman is the best judge to take care of its own interest & to take decisions and the AO is not supposed to intervene therein nor he can replace the assessee. Here, whatever decisions were take…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Abhinav Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4354/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. M/S Abhinav Steels Pvt. Ltd Circle -1(1) 401, Mahaveer Ji Complex New Delhi Lsc, Rishab Jain Vihar New Delhi Pan : Aabca 3974 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surendrapal, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendrapal, Sr. DR

Section 68

…ade the addition merely on the basis of surmises and doubts. It is a settled law that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take part of legal proof. Similar view has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC), wherein it has held as under: “Taking into consideration the entire circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that there was no material on which the ITO could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There were many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion was the result of suspicion which could not take the place of proo…

Kiran Kothari HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 68

…o 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 how so ever strong it may appear to be, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establ…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…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, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. b) Regarding the inquiries which are bein…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…of evidence and that alone cannot be the criteria for deciding the matter. v) Goyal Gases (P) Ltd. (1997) 94 Taxman 57 Delhi [DoD: 04/11/2016] vi) CIT Vs Meghjibhai Popat Bhai Virani (2013) 217 Taxman 35 (Gujarat HC) vii) Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) viii) SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 Delhi ix) Mahabir Prasad Jagdish Prasad Vs CST 27 STC 337 (All) x) Pondy Metal Rolling Mills (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (2007) 14 SOT (Delhi) [DoD: 30'II 2006] xi) GTC Industries Ltd Vs ACIT (2017) 80 taxmann.com 284 (Mum) (SB)[DoD: 07/03/2017] xii) DCIT Vs Krishna Yadav (2011) 12 taxmann.com 4 (Hyd) 31/03/…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.1422 & 1423/Mum/2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 and 2006-07 Smt. Pratiksha Shah, ACIT, A-602, Ekta Milan, Central Cirle-11, बनाम/ Devki Nagar, Eksar Village, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Borivali (W), M. K. Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAFPM4838D Assessment Year: 2005-06 ACIT-25(2), Smt. Pratiksha Shah, C-11,…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha B Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

S.R. Protiens Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the disallowance of Rs 71,795 is hereby deleted

ITA 978/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 May 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…of personal user etc were there. An allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw v/s CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC). All the disallowances deserve deletion on this submission alone. 12.2 Businessman is the best judge: It is settled that a businessman is the best judge to take care of its own interest & to take decisions and the AO is not supposed to intervene therein nor he can replace the assessee. Here, whatever decisions were taken by the assessee, has…

ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Khayber Properties & Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4062/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito 8(2)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Khayber Properties &Investments Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Standard House, Near Safed Pulm, Sakinaka, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaack2217Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…ption, suspicion, guess work, conjectures and surmises and on failure to consider relevant material on record, which is legally not sustainable. Kindly refer to Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT - 26 ITR 775 (Supreme Court), Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT - 37 ITR 271 (Supreme Court). 2.3. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel and since, the appellant himself has duly disclosed in the books of account, the sum of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- - which has been clearly proved by the appellant - the A.O. is 'directed to delete this addition/disallowance of Rs. 1,16,00,000/-. Hence, this ground of appeal is allo…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nihar Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNNAL MUMBAI BENCH ‘’I’’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA ( ACCOUNT MEMBER) I.T.A.Nos. 3020 to 3024/Mum/2015 ( Assessment years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 ) Nihar Equipment Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT, 13(1)(1) [Erstwhile DCIT-9(2)] 117, CD Government Industrial Mumbai Estate, Hindustan Naka, Charkop, Kandivli (W), Mumbai- 67 PAN : AABCN9153N Appellant Respondent I.T.A.Nos. 3790 to 3794/Mum/2015 ( Assessment years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 ) DCIT, 13(1)(1), Mumbai V/s Nihar Equipment Pvt Ltd 117, CD Government Industrial Estate, Hindustan Naka, Charkop, Kan…

Nihaar Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 13(1)(1)

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3020/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

ACIT, Cir-52, Kolkata vs. M/S Balaji Export Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 591/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Venkatramani, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ogus hawala purchases and the appellant had indulged in inflating and manipulating the consumption figures. In Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC)Umarcharan Shaw & Bros. v CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC) and LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), it had clearly been held by the Apex Court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. Hence, the addition of Rs.3,27,04,943/- on account of bogus…

Tirupati College of Technical Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with

ITA 452/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, (CIT)

Section 10Section 143(3)

…funds by the managing committee. An allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw v/s CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC). All the disallowances deserve deletion on this submission alone. 10.1 The assessee has some other reason to kept cash in hand. The assessee wants to purchase the land for further extension of educational institution and for that it entered into an agreement on dt. 11.04.2011 for purchase the land for Rs.46,80,000/- for which the assessee nee…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…at suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof and there cannot be any addition merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. For the said proposition, the assessee relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Urnaracharan Shaw & Bros. V. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC) [page 272 - para (v)]. The appellant therefore submits that purchases could not be held to be non-genuine only for the reason that the parties name appear in the so called list of suspicious dealers of the sales tax authorities. The appellant has furnished all the details proving that the purchases have been duly made and hence, are genuine p…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5293/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

…was allowed. [Para 12]" 6.3.8. Further, the AO cannot make any additions just on the basis of presumption. Suspicion, however strong cannot take place of proof. This principle is reflected in the following judicial principles: • Urnacharan Shaw& Bros v. GIT (37 ITR 271)(SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (26 ITR 775)(SC) • SheoNaralnDuli Chand v CIT (72 ITR 766)(AII.) The, whole case of the A.O. is built up, on appearance of certain purchase parties on the Website of Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and the appellant's failure to produce these parties before the AO. Department's effort to verify the genuinenes…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Shri Baljeet, Jhajjar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4416/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Baljeet S/O Sh. Jage Ram, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Vpo Lowakhurd, Rohtak (Haryana) Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar Haryana (Pan: Bbdp84909G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…of India in the case of CIT, Ernakulam vs. PK Noorjahan reported at 237 ITR 570. He further stated that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures, as has been held in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. vs. CIT reported 37 ITR 271 (SC). With regard to cash withdrawals assessee’s counsel stated that a sum of Rs. 55,000/- deposited on 2.12.2005 and Rs. 50,000/- on 8.3.2006 were out of cash withdrawals of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 2911.2005 as is evident from copy of bank statement of the assessee. In this behalf, he stated that it is a settled law that once cash deposits are duly…

ITO, Rohtak vs. M/S. Veekay Medicos, Rohtak

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 968/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal & Smt Diva Singh

Section 194HSection 40

…se nor was there any evidence or material on record which would justify the rejection of the book results. Further, it is settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicious and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271(SC) Uma Charan Shaw &Bros. Co. v.CIT and other decision 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay, 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills ltd. V CIT, 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT, 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd." Further, this issue is covered by the…

Jai Hind Paper Mart, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 6134/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6134 /Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jai Hind Paper Mart Income Tax Officer 14(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Earnest House 186, Hiramanek Bldg, बिधम/ Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Nariman Point, Vs. Chira Bazar, Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaafj3532E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6144 /Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 14(2)(3), M/S. Jai Hind Paper Mart 3Rd Floor, Earnest House 186, Hiramanek Bldg, बिधम/ Nariman Point, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Chira Bazar, Mumbai-400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaafj3532E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Ratan Samul प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi Kiran

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamulFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Kiran

Section 143(1)Section 148

…n just on the basis of presumption. 5 ITA No.6134&6144/M/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) M/s. Jai Hind Paper Mart Suspicion, however strong cannot take place of proof. This principle is reflected in the following judicial pronouncements: Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT (37 ITR 271) (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT (26 ITR 775) (SC) SheoNarain DuliChand v. CIT (72 ITR 766)(All.) iv) Under the Income the Income Tax Act, 1961 what can be taxed is the real income. Even though the transaction is not verifiable, what is taxable is the income component, and not the entire transaction amount. It is quite possible that the appel…

Shri Pradeep Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 5722/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…vidence without prejudice, no adverse findings could have been recorded by the authorities based on mere suspicion. It is settled law that, no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. 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) 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 'As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor General when he says that the ITO is no…