Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

…'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. B. 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. C. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2009 dated 29.04.2009 at para 2 held as follows: a. "The tribunal found that the chain of transaction entered into by the assesse have been proved, accounted for, documented and s…

Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

…'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. B. 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. C. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2009 dated 29.04.2009 at para 2 held as follows: a. “The tribunal found that the chain of transaction entered into by the assesse have been proved, accounted for, documented and s…

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Alka Rajesh Vanigota Vs. Commissioner of 1001, 10th Floor Income Tax(A)-52, Om Residency Mumbai 28, Gilder Lane Mumbai Central, Mumbai- 400 008 PAN/GIR No.ACRPV6181E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by Shri Aditya M.Rai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20/12/2024, passed by the learned Comm…

Omega Infrastructures, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

…confirmed such contribution. Therefore, addition u/s.68 made on the basis of suspicion is not maintainable. On this proposition we rely upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959) 37 ITR 271 wherein, it was held that suspicion however strong may be cannot take the place of evidence. For this view was reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solves (2018)257 Taxman 440 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- 8 Omega Infrastructures “Where Assessing Officer made additio…

Florence Agro Farms, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Florence Agro Farms Ito, Ward-23(1)(6), Mumbai F-11, 3Rd Floor, Manek Mahal, 90, Veer Vs Piramal Chambers, Nariman Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. [Pan No. Aabff5181C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

…gements of CIT VS. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 wherein Apex court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so and decision of Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. vs CIT, 37 ITR 271 that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 8. The Appellant craves leave to, add to, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised…

DCIT 42 1 1, Mumbai vs. Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

…dences submitted before AO during assessment proceedings, reply submitted by subcontractor us.133(6) and nature and place of work undertaken, the conclusion drawn by AO appears to be untenable. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros, v/s CIT in 37 ITR 271 has has held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence. 6.2.3 Additionally, M/s. B.G. Corporation submitted a reply under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. providing the Ledger Confirmation, Bank Statement, Income Tax Return. Computation of Income, Balance Sheet, and Profit & Loss Account. The only rea…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

…ndirectly linked to the Appellant, it is difficult to implicate the appellant in the alleged scam. This is because, suspicion however strong, cannot take place of evidence as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs, CIT(1959) 37 ITR 271(SC). Therefore, in view of the above factual matrix and circumstances in respect of purchases Splash Media & and sales of shares of M/s JMD Telefilms Ltd. and M/s Infra Ltd. by the Appellant and also in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Courts and various High Courts including binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Courts and a pletho…

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

…reme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC), wherein it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures, 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 and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2009 dated 29.04.2009 at para 2 held as follows: 15. At the end we conclude that AO has placed nothing on record to suggest that Traded Shares (Scrips) were not listed on stock ex…