← All Phrases

“preponderance of probability”

Judicial DoctrinesEvidenceEvidence547 judgments

The decision most relied on for preponderance of probability is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on preponderance of probability

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

CIT v. P. Mohanakala
291 ITR 278 · 2007 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

PCIT v. Krishna Devi
126 Taxmann.com 80 · 2021 · High Court
249
citing judgments

The genuineness of share transactions, particularly those generating long-term capital gains, cannot be rejected solely based on general investigation reports, third-party statements, or a mere increase in share price, when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, without the Revenue bringing substantial evidence to the contrary.

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal
328 ITR 656 · 2010 · High Court
230
citing judgments

When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT
6 SOT 247 · 2006 · ITAT
139
citing judgments

The department must substantiate its allegations of a bogus long term capital gain scheme; if not substantiated, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for purported bogus LTCG derived from the purchase/sale of shares cannot be sustained. An assessee's claim for long term capital gains exemption on share transactions should be allowed where documentation supports the transactions.

Delhi in Suman Poddar v. Income Tax Officer 99
112 Taxmann.com 330 · 2019 · Supreme Court
138
citing judgments

Exemption under Section 10(38) is not allowable for long-term capital gains arising from bogus share transactions involving penny stocks or manipulative dealings. The Income Tax Department can establish such a case based on the preponderance of probabilities where there is no genuine financial worth.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull
103 ITR 344 · 1976 · High Court
97
citing judgments

The assessee is not required to prove the source of the source of funds, nor the origin of the origin of the funds. The onus is discharged if the identity of the creditor and the actual receipt of money are proved.

Judgments citing preponderance of probability

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Delhi vs. Bhushan Dua, New Delhi

ITA 2510/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1 ITA Nos. 2713-2714/Del/2023; ITA Nos. 7,51,271/Del/2024 etc. Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Bhushan Dua, New Delhi

ITA 2509/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1 ITA Nos. 2713-2714/Del/2023; ITA Nos. 7,51,271/Del/2024 etc. Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Sh. Kailash Agrawal, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 380/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garj & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.380/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Kailash Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- A/1, 3003, Regent Textile Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor Aayakar Market, Ring Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat– 395002 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aappa 3267 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) ""ा"ेप सं /Co No.3/Srt/2025 (A/O Ita No.380/Srt/2025/(Ay 2018-19) Shri Kailash Agarwal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम A/1, 3003, Regent Textile Income-Tax, Central Circle- / 3, Surat, 5Th Floor Aayakar Market, Ring Road, Surat– Vs. 395002 Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aappa 3267 N (""थ"/Respondent) (Co-Objector) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By Shri Ramesh Goyal, Ca राज"की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/09/2025

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

erred in deleting the addition made by the AO ignoring the principles of "Human Probability Test", i.e. preponderance of probabilities which is applicable to Income tax proceedings as laid down in Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More ... material recovered during the search proceedings. It was also submitted that the income-tax proceedings are based on the principles of principle of preponderance of probability and vigors Evidence Act do not apply to income- tax proceedings, unlike in criminal and civil cases. 6. The Ld. A.R, on the other

Shri Vishwakarama Jewellers, Akola vs. DCIT Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 99/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

other source of income of the Assessee is there on record either disclosed by the Assessee or unearthed by the Revenue. The preponderance of probability therefore is that the debtors were sourced from the business of the Assessee. Therefore, there is no question of treating it as deemed income from ... income of the Assessee was on record either disclosed by the Assessee or unearthed by the Revenue. The Bench further held that the preponderance of probability, therefore, is that the debtors were sourced from the business of the Assessee. Therefore, there was no question of treating it as deemed income

Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited, Hardoi vs. ACIT, Sitapur

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

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

evidences of cash deposit but the LD. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by relied on the theory of circumstantial evidence and preponderance of probabilities and completely ignored the documentary evidences in the form of sales Bill, VAT return, Vat Assessment order, Stock register and purchase Register. 1. SUBMISSION ... C.I.T (A) in Para 5.3 of the Appellate order while confirming the addition of Cash Deposit had relied on the theory of preponderance of probabilities and circumstantial evidence and in this regard, placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs Kailash Jewellery

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Akshay Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4309/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Akshay Automobiles 129, Aayakar Bhavan, Private Limited, Mumbai-400020. Vs. 1, 2 William Compound, 33 Marve Road, Mith Chowke, Malad (East), Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aafca3582P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-04-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Wherein The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

cash sales of Rs. 38.13 Lakh, when compared to total sales of Rs. 6731.66 Lakh, are very small and fit within the preponderance of probability of the appellant's business. Furthermore, the Annexures submitted on record (N-1 to N-10) contain copies of invoice no., date, customers name, invoice

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1596/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

that the retraction of statement is only an afterthought and the AO was correct in the treatment of the unsecured loans considering the preponderance of probability." Additional Grounds of Appeal:- 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1595/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

that the retraction of statement is only an afterthought and the AO was correct in the treatment of the unsecured loans considering the preponderance of probability." Additional Grounds of Appeal:- 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

Usha Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 44(6), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1233/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Usha Devi, Ito, 30B/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), Delhi-110026, Delhi. Vs Delhi. Pan- Aafpa1096H Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

explanation. One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man's behavior test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus. Probability means likelihood of anything to be true. Probability refers to appearance ... Evidence can be oral and cannot be discarded on this ground. Assessment order and the appellate orders fall foul and have disregarded the preponderance of probability test. Jaya Aggarwal V ITO (2018) 92 taxmann.com 108 (Delhi) (81-84)-1555- 99Assessing Officer observed that sum was redeposited after more than

Devenra Kumar Gupta, Rewa vs. ACIT, Circle Satna, Satna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Devendra Kumar Gupta V. Acit Circle Satna 17/304, Venkat Road, Ghoghar, Income Tax Office, Aaykar Rewa-486001. Bhawan, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Pan: Ahapg6843Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

claimed by the assessee during the particular period, when the demonetization period was vogue the assessee claimed higher sales. Therefore, looking to the „Preponderance of Probability‟, the authorities were justified for making the addition. 5. Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties. Admittedly, the Assessing Authorities has not doubted ... cases of suspicious transactions is ascertained on the basis of the material available on record, the surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of probabilities.” 5.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court by placing reliance on its own judgment in the case of Durga Prasad More, observed the following in the case

M/S Bansal Oil Mill Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

from Dolphin Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained is uncalled for. 3. The lower authorities have referred to various decisions which are either on preponderance of probability or are not applicable on the facts of the 6 M/s Bansal Oil Mill Ltd., Jaipur present case. The ld. CIT (A) has also

Yadav Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bathinda

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

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

state movement of goods in support of actual delivery . He further 13 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 submitted that on the preponderance of probability also, the assessee has not gained anything out of this sales transaction (except normal profits) and entire books and stock registers recording inward

ITO, Kolkata vs. Ajit Kumar Minda, Kolkata

ITA 2668/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaι.Τ.Α. No.2668/Kol/2024

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Manunatha G, Accountant

Manisha Kamal Khetan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in terms of our

ITA 2698/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, SR AR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

itself has been investigated and found to be indulged in such activity; or some direct evidence or material is found implicating assessee. Then preponderance of probability goes against the assessee that documents filed by the assessee cannot be conclusive. Presumption can be based against the assessee if all such factors

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &
Section 250Section 68

inquiry conducted in November. 2016 and past assessment records have to be weighed in light of all probable factors and preponderance of probability of such factors has to be seen qua material on record which we shall discussed herein after. One of the most glaring fact which unfolds from

Ismail Abdulaziz Lakhani, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the same were transferred through registered broker, on the floor of the recognized stock exchange, after suffering Security Transaction Tax and ultimately settled through proper banking channel) as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,51,12,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Sarju Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly with out resorting to subterfuges." The preponderance of probability test is required to be applied in the nature of circumstances of the case and the capital gain claimed by the assessee ... same. Here whatever documentary evidence was submitted would not be the conclusive evidence but what would be conclusive was the test of preponderance of probabilities. The common pattern in all such transactions is: 1. Purchase of stock at rock bottom price 2. No Financial credibility of the company, whose shares

Income Tax Officer Ward 52(1) New Delhi, New Delhi vs. M/S Novel Infratech, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarito, Vs. M/S. Novel Infratech, Ward-52(1), Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash New Delhi Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfn0187A

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessing Officer has doubted the financial capacity of the creditors in some cases, but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be substance in contention because the addition is made u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not M/s. Novel Infratech brought

Kalarickal Sukumaran Vinod, Ernakulam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 573/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalarickal Sukumaran Vinod .......... Appellant 1A Tanzeel Apartment, Kumranasan Nagar\ Kadavanthara, Ernakulam 682020 [Pan: Aeapv6534L] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 13.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Stated To Be An Ex-Sportsman. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 29.03.2018 Declaring Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At Total Income Of Rs. 38,75,280/-. While Doing So

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

such cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawals of Rs. 50,00,000/- made on 12.04.2016 on the ground that the on preponderance of probability, the appellant would not have kept the money with him when the cash was withdrawn for the purpose of setting up of boxing club

Anand Mellaram Issrani, Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anand Mellaram Issrani, Acit 23(1), 1St Floor, Charishma Chs, Guru Piramal Chambers, Nanak Road, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaapi 1267 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 69C

additions reasoning that: (a) surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of probabilities indicate probabilities indicated non-genuineness; (b) the assessee failed to genuineness; (b) the assessee failed to prove the “creditworthiness” of the company whose shares ... investor and the preponderance of human conduct of a prudent investor and the preponderance of human conduct of a prudent investor and the preponderance of probabilities that may sp probabilities that may spill over to negate the claim for exception ill over to negate the claim for exception made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S Jasdeep Kaur Chadha, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 359/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 68

addition u/s 68 of the Act, the AO has doubted the financial capacity of loan creditors but such addition cannot be made on preponderance of probability and there has to be some evidence and substance in contention. The Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to establish that