Which cases are most cited on Section 131(1)(d)?

UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v. CIT (37 ITR 21) — 50 citing judgments; Chennai v. M/s. Accel Limited 421 of (286 ITR 126) — 39 citing judgments; CIT v. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd. (280 ITR 377) — 36 citing judgments; CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (152 Taxmann 242) — 30 citing judgments; ITO 20(2)(5), Mumbai v. Smt. Pratima Ashar (107 Taxmann.com 135) — 17 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 131(1)(d)?

BharatTax indexes 28 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act?

UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v. CIT (37 ITR 21) is the decision most relied on for Section 131(1)(d), cited in 50 judgments. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof or evidence in income-tax proceedings. Additions cannot be made solely based on suspicion, placing the onus of proof on the Assessing Officer, especially for additions under 'deeming fiction' provisions.

The decision most relied on for Section 131(1)(d) is UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v. CIT (37 ITR 21), cited in 50 of the 28 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 131(1)(d)

UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v. CIT

37 ITR 21 · 1959 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof or evidence in income-tax proceedings. Additions cannot be made solely based on suspicion, placing the onus of proof on the Assessing Officer, especially for additions under 'deeming fiction' provisions.

Chennai v. M/s. Accel Limited 421 of

286 ITR 126 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer conducted inquiries, even if the Commissioner believes more inquiries were warranted. The fact that inquiries were made by the Assessing Officer is sufficient.

CIT v. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd.

280 ITR 377 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner can only invoke revisionary powers under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, requiring a prima facie finding on merits.

CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi

152 Taxmann 242 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

Revision under section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Assessing Officer did not conduct exhaustive enquiries. Jurisdiction under section 263 is not for re-examining the assessment process or for conducting further enquiries if the initial assessment was based on the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.

ITO 20(2)(5), Mumbai v. Smt. Pratima Ashar

107 Taxmann.com 135 · 2019 · ITAT

citing judgments

DCIT v. Hetal Nitin Shah

159 Taxmann.com 1618 · 2024 · ITAT

citing judgments

CIT v. Land Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd.

357 ITR 763 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Chemicon Engineering Consultant (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

142 Taxmann.com 297 · 2022 · Reported

citing judgments

Third Member) in CIT v. Rohtas Projects Ltd.

100 ITD 113 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

S.M.I.L.E. Micro Finance Ltd. v. ACIT

479 ITR 172 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 131(1)(d)

TIRUMALAIAH SOMA,PRODDATUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1742/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G., HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

M/S. SOUTH WEST PINNACLE EXPLORATION LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4076/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4Th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Aakcs3608R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit (A)”, For Short] Dated 17.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Present Appeal Are Squarely Covered By Various Decisions & He Heavily Relied Upon The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench In The Case Of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit (2025) 174

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU vs. SHUBHANKAR ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE, LALBAGH ROAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1917/BANG/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

VISHAL SINGHAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

ITA 4106/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklamr. Vishal Singhal Vs. Nfac, G-35, B, Patel Nagar Iii, Ward 2(2)(1) Ghaziabad Cgo Complex-Ii, Purani Uttar Pradesh - 201001 Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Dijps2427H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwal, Adv, Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca, Sh. Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131(1)(d)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. RADHA MOHAN ROY, PURNEA

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

ITA 264/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Radha Mohan Roy, 6Th Floor, Room No.602 Mohan Nivas At Chopra Bazar, Central Revenue Building Ramnagar, Farshi Banmanki, Vs. (Annexe), Beer Chand Patel Purnea, Bihari-854102 Marg, Patna, Bihar-800001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Buzpr3181H Co No. 03/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 264/Pat/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Radha Mohan Roy, 6Th Floor, Room No.602 Mohan Nivas At Chopra Bazar, Central Revenue Building Ramnagar, Farshi Banmanki, Vs. (Annexe), Beer Chand Patel Purnea, Bihari-854102 Marg, Patna, Bihar-800001 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Md. Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

M/S BLOOMS REALATORS & HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

ITA 586/LKW/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2010-11 M/S Blooms Realators & Hospitality Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd, B-1/66, Vivek Khand, 1-(4), Lucknow Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Aadcb6111H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Lucknow Dated 30.03.2015, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Passed On 30.03.2013. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Findings Recorded By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) That The Asasesse Has Failed To Discharge The Onus To Establish The Identity, Credit Worthiness Of Share Holder Company & Genuineness Of The Transaction Are Wholly Perverse Finding. 2. Because The Assessee During The Assessment Proceeding As Well As Before The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Filed The Documents Share Application Form, Certificate Of Incorporation, Acknowledgement Of Itr, Bank Statements & Copies Of Pan Card Of Share Holders Company. These Documents Are Sufficient To Establish The Identity, Credit Worthiness & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 3. Because It Is Well Settled Law That A Person, Making Investment In Share Capital Is Best Judge Regarding His Investment. The 9 Share Holder Companies On Their Own Have Made Investment In The Appellant Company. The Wrong Decision Of The Investor Cannot Be A Basis For Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

REVA ENTERPRISE,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 414/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.259, 380 & 414/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Reva Enterprises, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 50, Gandhi Market, Ward – 2(4), Rajpipla Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch Sarangpore, Narmada - 393001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfr8509E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr) With Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

REVA ENTERPRISE,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 380/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

REVA ENTERPRISE,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 259/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

RAJESH PODDAR,SURAT vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 547/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69BSection 69C

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

ITA 191/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 263

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 263

ASHUTOSH KUMAR VERMA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 115/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Ashutosh Kumar Verma V. The Acit Atkonwa, Lakhimpur Kheri Sitapur - New Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Adqpv4727J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)

M/S BANSAL OIL MILL LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, 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

DODHIA SYNTHETICS LIMITED,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

ITA 2189/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, THANE, THANE vs. DODHIA SYNTHETICS LIMITED, BHIWANDI

ITA 2106/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

VASUPUJYA FILAMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

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

ITA 883/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 528/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 6Section 69

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , RAJKOT vs. SYMBOSA GRANITO PRIVATE LIMITED, WANKANER

ITA 806/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.806/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Symbosa Granite Pvt. Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(1), Rajkot Room No. 502,Aaykar Bhavan, Survey No. 125P1/P2,126,131P1/P2/P3, Race Course Road, Village- Matel, Rajkot - 300001 Wankaner- 363621(Gujarat) (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungliya, Ld. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: Captiond Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Dated 13.08.2024,Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 31.03.2022.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungliya, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LIC BUILDING vs. MADHU CHORDIA, C-SCHEME

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1525/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2