Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT (37 ITR 271) (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT (

72 ITR 766High Court#12980 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

document

Judgments citing Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT (37 ITR 271) (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT (

SAVI REALTY HOLDING PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.140/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Savi Realty Holding Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcj0018K (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, SR-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…cution of that agreement. The lower authorities have simply discarded the affidavits in a summary manner which is not permissible in law. A reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Narain Duli Chand reported in 72 ITR 766(All) wherein it has been held that there is no presumption that a witness appearing for an assessee come forward to give false evidence to oblige an assessee. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the case and the law applicable we are of the firm view that the authorities below have erred in making addition to the income of the assessee on…

BHAVAN LAKHMAN RAVARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD, 21(3)(1). MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1127/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebhavan Lakhman Ravaria V. Income Tax Officer- 21(3)(1) 401, D Wing, Golden Oak Mumbai Opposite D-Mart, Powai Hiranandani, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400076 Pan: Acwpr6513M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Khushiram Jadhwani Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…tement, Development Agreement, Agreement for sale and copies of compliant that appellant had commenced the real estate business. However, due to fraud it could not complete the same. Reliance is placed on Sheo Narain Duli Chand vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [72 ITR 766 (ALL.)] Appellant submits that it has filed of various complains at various forums such as Varsova Police Station, Inspector General of Police- Konkan, Commissioner of police Mumbai, Minister of State, Crime Branch Mumbai and D N Nagar Police Station. The Copy of these complaints are annexed to PB at page no 378 to page no 421 Appellant also filed…

JAGAT SINGH ,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), MUZAFFARNAGAR

ITA 1128/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Senior DR

…e evidence in favour of the assessee; that AO has not preferred to enforce the attendance of the witnesses and relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Orissa Corp. 159 ITR 78 (SC), Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Sheo Narian Duli Chand 72 ITR 766 (All.), Nathu Ram Premchand vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All.), and coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Mukesh V Prajapati vs. ITO in ITA No.2118/Ahm/2007. 9. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that since the land in question was taken by the assessee at no…

MR. LATE SMT. VINEETA SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1791/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2020AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

…that there is a general tendency of near and dear ones to sympathise and come forward in times of crises, is highly unfounded and is arbitrary. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sheo Narain Duli Chand vs. CIT reported in 72 ITR 766, he submitted that it has been held that there is no presumption that witnesses appearing for an assessee come forward to give false evidence to oblige the assessee’. He submitted that the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice when considered in the light of the finding of the learned AO, it is evident that the entire conclusion of th…

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNRISE METALLIC (INDIA) P.LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…on. 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)  SbeoNarainDuli Chand v. CIT (72 ITR 766) (All.)  6.3.4. It has been explained by the appellant that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had requested the AO to give them copies of all the materials/ information/evidences, on the basis of which the AO has formed his opinion to make disallowance of above referred purchases. However, no such 4 M/s. Sunrise Metallic (India) Pvt…

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

…resumption. 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 genuineness of purchases in respect of seller party did not make any progress as the notices issued could…

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

…per 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 appellant would have made purchases from open market without insisting for genuine bills, as the supp…

ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4526/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 4526 To 4528/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 To 2011-12 The Ito-14(1)(3), Shri Takhtmal Bhuralal बनाम/ Earnest House, Pichholiya, Vs. Nariman Point, (Prop. Metal Agencies), Mumbai-400 021 Room No. 28, 2Nd Floor, 204, Chandra Mahal, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai-400 002 C.O. Nos. 212 To 214/Mum/2015 (Arising Out Of I.Ta Nos. 4526 To 4528/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 To 2011-12 Shri Takhtmal Bhuralal The Ito-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Pichholiya, Earnest House, Vs. (Prop. Metal Agencies), Nariman Point, Room No. 28, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400 021 204, Chandra Mahal, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya

Section 143(3)

…umption. 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)(AIl.) The appearance of a purchase party on the website of Sales Tax Department may raise a question mark; however the allowance of purchase expenses has to be necessarily decided taking into view the totality of the circumstances of appellant’s claim. Hence, I am of the opinion that the opinion that it would be justified to restrict the addition…