Uttam Chand Jain v. CIT

320 ITR 554High Court2010#5261 most cited

What is Uttam Chand Jain v. CIT authority for?

An addition to income cannot be made on mere suspicion or presumption. There must be tangible material and evidence on record to support any addition made by the Assessing Officer.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Uttam Chand Jain · CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain · 320 ITR 554 · addition cannot be made on assumption basis · material on record as evidence for addition · addition made on basis of presumption cannot be sustained

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 144BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 2(12)

Issues it is cited on

retracted statementpaper companybogus ltcglive linkaddition under section 68entry operatorpenny stocksection 10(38)principal commissioner of income-taxtangible materiallong term capital gainsshare application money

Judgments citing Uttam Chand Jain v. CIT

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2269/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri N.R.Agrawal & Pavan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Shukla
Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(6)Section 143(3)

…on there is no independent or corroborate evidence to support the declaration. Nothing was seized or found during the course of survey, except some purchase bills. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Uttamchand Jain 320 ITR 554, Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Premsons, 130 TTJ 159, ITAT Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Satish Builders, 23 DTR 171, in support of the proposition that merely on the basis of declaration addition cannot be made. Reliance was also placed on CBDT Instruction for not to force the confession during survey. 4. With regard t…

Avinash Kumar Setia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. UN Marwah, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

…s. ACIT (2013) 23 ITR 522 154 - CIT vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 33 taxmann.com 130 (Madras High Court) - ITO vs. Surrender Kumar Jain ITA No. 3871/Del/2011 - Gajjam Chinna Yellappa vs. ITO (2015) 370 ITR 671 (T&AP) (HC) - CIT vs. Uttam Chand Jain (2010) 320 ITR 554 - R. Arun vs. ITO, 2016 (3) TMI 321 ITAT, Chennai. 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the same may be upheld and the Appeal of the assessee may be dismissed accordingly. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records available with us, especially the orders passed by the reven…