Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)
Hitesh Mangilal Jain,Mumbai vs Ito 19(1)(5), Mumbai on 31 December, 2024 cites

Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 5 March, 1959

Besides the addition made on mere suspicion,conjecture and surmises could not be sustained.The case of assessee finds support from the decision of Hon'ble P a g e | 28 ITA No. 257, 261 & 262/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Hitesh Mangilal Jain Apex Court in Omar Salay Sait vs CIT(1959) 37 ITR 151(SC).The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Saw and Bros. vs CIT 37 ITR 271 has held that suspicion how so far strong could not take the character of legal evidence.Thus,it was noted that none of the parties alleged by the Revenue such as broker,operator,directors,exit providers etc whose statements were recorded by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata stated name of the appellant.The case of the assesseeis supported by a catena of decisions as in the cases of Kunal Dedhia in ITA No.3893/M/2019 dated 31.07.2020, Vijayarattan Balkrishhna Mitta in ITA No.3429/M/2019 dated 1.10.2019,Mukesh Sharma in ITA no.6249/M/2018 dated 29.05.2019 etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 278 - Full Document

Messrs. Lalchand Bhagat Ambical Ram vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 14 May, 1959

d) Sunil Aggarwal-64 taxmann.com 107 (Del-HC) 10.10 It is submitted that theLd. AO alleged that undisclosed cash belonging to the assessee is received back in garb of long term capital gain. In this context, the assessee submits that heavy onus is cast upon the person who asserts the allegations. The Ld. AO, except making bare allegations, had not discharged the heavy onus cast upon him and had not brought an iota of evidence on record to justify the allegations, thus the addition made on the basis of assumption and surmise is unjustified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288) and in the case of Omar Sahay Mohamad Sait v. CIT (37 ITR 151) had decided that it is a trite law that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion, surmise, conjectures and in absence of evidence. Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. (37 ITR 271) had decided that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of an evidence;
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 371 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next