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 366,339 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 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

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. Shri.Jagannathan Sekar, Chennai

ITA 1279/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

…t the Learned Assessing Officer has ected more on suspicion and doubt than on evidence. It is settled principle of that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (ii) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) (iii)CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shac 37 IT…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukkottai

ITA 1278/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Chennai. Opp.Smbm School, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), # 3/29, New No,3/40, Chennai. Muthupattinam, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), # 25, Sambasivam Street, Chennai. T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukottai

ITA 1276/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

Section 132(4)

…on suspicion and doubt than on evidence. It is settled principle of that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ra…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. K. Rethinam, Dindigul

ITA 1275/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…heques/RTGS in favour of the Assessee. Therefore, Appellant has duly discharged the burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. 41. It is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare…

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…the case of 121 depositors more on the basis of suspicion, assumption and presumption. It is settled principle of law that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of evidence. The following cases are quoted in support :- (i) Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (v) State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) (vi J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) From the discussion made above, it may kindly be seen that :- (1) All the creditors are asses…

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rucha Consultancy LLP, Pune

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

ITA 5706/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 65BSection 69A

…it with any kind of independent evidence linking such material with the assessee. As per the plethora of Court judgments discussed above, such an act is not permitted under the law. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Similarly, raising presumption itself does not amount to proof. Presumption, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence as held in the case of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817 and in the case of D.M Kamani HUF 65 TTJ (Pat) 504. Thus, in the absence of any independent eviden…

Rucha Consultancy LLP, Pune vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4996/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 65BSection 69A

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6281/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…rely cannot treat the genuine transactions as in genuine on the basis of suspicious and surmises as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Sahay Mohd Sail 37 ITR 151 (SC), Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Umacharan Shah & Bros, 37 ITR 271 (SC). Hence in these circumstances no additions are warranted. Therefore considering the overall factual and legal position we direct the AO to delete the addition. ITA Nos. 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 10. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to ITA No 6279/Mum/2024 for the A.Y 2007-08 (except variance in figures) and the decis…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6280/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rajendra Sawaleram Rahane, Sangamner, Maharashtra

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in case of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 5668/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi and Ms. Ketki Rajeshike, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…it with any kind of independent evidence linking such material with the assessee. As per the plethora of Court judgments discussed above, such an act is not permitted under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Similarly, raising presumption itself does not amount to proof. Presumption, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence as held in the case of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817 and in the case of D.M Kamani HUF 65 TTJ (Pat) 504. Thus, in the absence of any independent eviden…

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Ranjit Rajaram Hande, Solapur

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in case of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 5621/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi and Ms. Ketki Rajeshike, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…it with any kind of independent evidence linking such material with the assessee. As per the plethora of Court judgments discussed above, such an act is not permitted under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Similarly, raising presumption itself does not amount to proof. Presumption, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence as held in the case of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817 and in the case of D.M Kamani HUF 65 TTJ (Pat) 504. Thus, in the absence of any independent eviden…

Ramesh Ramani, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(5), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…upreme Court had pronounced ratios to the same effect: (i) K.P. Varghese v, ITO [1981| 131 ITR 5971 (SC); (ii) CIT v. A. Roman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973]91 ITR 8 (SC): (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959| 37 ITR 271 (SC).99. Apart from these Supreme Court cases, we also wish to cite the following decisions from Hon'ble Appellate Tribunals. :- 4 -: Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Add. CIT (TAT Delhi) 1TA No. 2428/DEI/2014 - Date of Judgement/Order: 11/09/2020 - No addition can be made merely on the basis of presumption. SHAMK International (P.) Ltd. Vs Income-Tax…

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Dinesh Jaiprakash Baheti, Nanded

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 5682/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…it with any kind of independent evidence linking such material with the assessee. As per the plethora of Court judgments discussed above, such an act is not permitted under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Similarly, raising presumption itself does not amount to proof. Presumption, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence as held in the case of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817 and in the case of D.M Kamani HUF 65 TTJ (Pat) 504. While the assessee Sh. Dinesh Baheti was also…

ACIT CC -6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Dinesh Jaiprakash Baheti, Nanded

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5608/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…it with any kind of independent evidence linking such material with the assessee. As per the plethora of Court judgments discussed above, such an act is not permitted under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Similarly, raising presumption itself does not amount to proof. Presumption, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence as held in the case of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817 and in the case of D.M Kamani HUF 65 TTJ (Pat) 504. While the assessee Sh. Dinesh Baheti was also…

ACIT CC 6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Dinesh Jaiprakash Baheti, Nanded

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5607/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…it with any kind of independent evidence linking such material with the assessee. As per the plethora of Court judgments discussed above, such an act is not permitted under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw and Bros v CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Similarly, raising presumption itself does not amount to proof. Presumption, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence as held in the case of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817 and in the case of D.M Kamani HUF 65 TTJ (Pat) 504. While the assessee Sh. Dinesh Baheti was also…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…jadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga [1933] 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT [1959] 37 I Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) 41. We particularly find the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) in support We particularly find the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) in support We particularly find the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) in support of his above fin…

Meena Hasmukh Savla, Matunga Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2910/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…Ojas asset with sole aim to bring back unaccounted money into the system. The appellants submit that no addition could be made merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The appellants submit that the Honourable Apex Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros (37 ITR 271) has held that no addition could be made on presumption; suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. 3.13 The appellant has duly discharged the onus that lies on him by establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, by way of submissions made by her during the assessment proceedings, and that being so, i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(2), Nagpur vs. Vidarbha Infotech Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 44ASection 69C

…C), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewala v. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.).” 6. The learned CIT(A), considering the above submissions of the assessee, deleted the addition of ` 7.50 crore made by the Assessing Officer under 9 Vidarbha Infotech Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.76/Nag./2024 section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure. The relevant…