What is 01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC) authority for?

Sums credited in the books of an assessee can be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act if the explanation offered regarding their nature and source is not satisfactory.

How many judgments cite 01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC)?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite 01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC) (213 ITR 805), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 5(2), Section 9, Section 6, Section 147, Section 5, Section 149(1)(c).

01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC) (213 ITR 805)

Jawaharlal Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…assessed by the assessing officer in a reasonable way genuineness of the transaction can be rejected in case the assessee not needs evidence, which is trustworthy. And the Department does not need any evidence on such an issue. In case of Smt. Vasantibai Shah 213 ITR 805 (Bom) the court observed that The Income tax Officer is entitled to take into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case Mumbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available…

Sham Gulabrai Tulsyani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 483/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal & Akash KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…assessed by the assessing officer in a reasonable way genuineness of the transaction can be rejected in case the assessee not needs evidence, which is trustworthy. And the Department does not need any evidence on such an issue. In case of Smt. Vasantibai Shah 213 ITR 805 (Bom) the court observed that The Income tax Officer is entitled to take into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case Mumbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available…

Naraindas Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 464/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…assessed by the assessing officer in a reasonable way genuineness of the transaction can be rejected in case the assessee not needs evidence, which is trustworthy. And the Department does not need any evidence on such an issue. In case of Smt. Vasantibai Shah 213 ITR 805 (Bom) the court observed that The Income tax Officer is entitled to take into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case Mumbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available…

Naraindas Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 463/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…assessed by the assessing officer in a reasonable way genuineness of the transaction can be rejected in case the assessee not needs evidence, which is trustworthy. And the Department does not need any evidence on such an issue. In case of Smt. Vasantibai Shah 213 ITR 805 (Bom) the court observed that The Income tax Officer is entitled to take into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case Mumbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available…

Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 449/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 149(1)(c)Section 234ASection 254

…assessed by the assessing officer in a reasonable way genuineness of the transaction can be rejected in case the assessee not needs evidence, which is trustworthy. And the Department does not need any evidence on such an issue. In case of Smt. Vasantibai Shah 213 ITR 805 (Bom) the court observed that The Income tax Officer is entitled to take into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case Mumbai and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases 1s not impermissible. In cases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Narendra Sampatlal Bafna, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 688/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…assessee. Accordingly, considering the factual position, the decision in the case of Dhunjibhoy Stud and Agricultural Farm is not applicable in the case of assessee. 5.13 The CIT(A) has relied on the decision in the case of Vasantibai N. Shah Vs. CIT [(1995) 213 ITR 805 (Bom)]. In this case, the issue was regarding validity of reassessment proceedings. The assessee had made a false disclosure. Subsequently, the case was reopened. Hon'ble High Court held that the reopening was valid since the assessee herself had made a false disclosure. Thus, the facts are totally different from the present case and hence, the r…

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…f the seized material. The Ld. DR has also relied upon several decisions in support of his arguments, they are: - a. CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan [2018] 404 ITR 433 (Madras) b. Smt Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Del.) c. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 805 (Bombay). d. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) e. S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1973] 224 ITR 619 (SC) 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the real issue to be decided in the present case is not as to whether the seized documents are meticulous or complete. The real issue to be decided is as to whether the documents found fr…

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3822/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…f the seized material. The Ld. DR has also relied upon several decisions in support of his arguments, they are: - a. CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan [2018] 404 ITR 433 (Madras) b. Smt Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Del.) c. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 805 (Bombay). d. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) e. S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1973] 224 ITR 619 (SC) 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the real issue to be decided in the present case is not as to whether the seized documents are meticulous or complete. The real issue to be decided is as to whether the documents found fr…

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3821/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…f the seized material. The Ld. DR has also relied upon several decisions in support of his arguments, they are: - a. CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan [2018] 404 ITR 433 (Madras) b. Smt Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Del.) c. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 805 (Bombay). d. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) e. S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1973] 224 ITR 619 (SC) 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the real issue to be decided in the present case is not as to whether the seized documents are meticulous or complete. The real issue to be decided is as to whether the documents found fr…

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ITA 3820/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…f the seized material. The Ld. DR has also relied upon several decisions in support of his arguments, they are: - a. CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan [2018] 404 ITR 433 (Madras) b. Smt Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Del.) c. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 805 (Bombay). d. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) e. S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1973] 224 ITR 619 (SC) 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the real issue to be decided in the present case is not as to whether the seized documents are meticulous or complete. The real issue to be decided is as to whether the documents found fr…

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2333/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ssessed by the assessing officer in a reasonable way. Genuineness of the transaction can be rejected in case the assessee needs evidence, which is not trustworthy, and the Department does not need any evidence on such an issue. In case of Smt. Vasantibai Shah 213 ITR 805 (Bom) the court observed that The Income tax Officer is entitled to take into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases is not impermissible. Incases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available. No dir…

Ajay Malshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. JCIT 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.641/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin M. Furia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, DR

Section 143Section 68

…he AO held that the assessee could not prove genuineness of these loan transactions amounting to Rs. 90 lacs. The AO relied upon following case laws to come to the aforesaid conclusion:- a) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 b) Vasntibai N Shah v. CIT (Bom) 213 ITR 805 c) Sreelekha Banerjee & Oths. v. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112 d) Cit v. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 e) Roshan De Hatti v. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 Hence additions were made by the AO in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the 1961 Act. Similarly interest paid to these three lending parties to the…

Kailash A Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 13(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2334/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2334/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Kailash A. Kothari Ito, Ward 13(1)(3), बनाम/ 128/130, Sarang Street, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 003 Mumbai-400 020 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Pranali Dixit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

For Appellant: Ms. Pranali DixitFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 234

…y not be clinching evidences but if at various places the circumstances are doubtful, the natural corollary is that such transaction was only paper transaction and cannot accord acceptability of such make belief transactions. In case of Smt Vasantibai N. Shah 213 ITR 805(Bom), the Hon'ble High Court observed that the Income tax Officer is entitled to take into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof and circumstantial evidence in such cases is not impermissible. In cases like this, it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be…

Shri Krishna Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2878/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2878/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Krishna Charitable Trust, Vs Jcit, C/O-M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, Range-2, South Extension, Part-I, Ghaziabad New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagts8457F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 68

…rust decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (SC) 501TR 1. Reliance is further placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts as under:- (i) Vasantibai N. Shah vs CIT (BOM) 213 ITR 805 (ii) Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. Vs. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112 (iii) CIT Vs Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal) 232 ITR 820 Thus in the light of the above facts, it is held that the AO was justified in making addition of Rs.27,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The same is hereby confirmed. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” 7. Now the assessee is in appea…

P.Murugesan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 2039/CHNY/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ramasamy, Sr. StandingFor Respondent: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, IRS, CIT

Section 132Section 133Section 144Section 153A

…xplanation the Assessing Officer had added the above said amount with the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits. The same view is supported by the following judgments:- 01. Sunsathi Dayal vs. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801. 02. Vasanthi Bai vs. CIT(Bom) 213 ITR 805 03. Srilekha Banerii and others vs. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112. It is to be noted that any sum was found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source is not satisfactory in the opinion of the lower authorities, the same can be added as unexplained cash credits in the b…

ACIT, Trichy vs. P.Murugesan, Thanjavur

ITA 2036/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ramasamy, Sr. StandingFor Respondent: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, IRS, CIT

Section 132Section 133Section 144Section 153A

…xplanation the Assessing Officer had added the above said amount with the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits. The same view is supported by the following judgments:- 01. Sunsathi Dayal vs. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801. 02. Vasanthi Bai vs. CIT(Bom) 213 ITR 805 03. Srilekha Banerii and others vs. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112. It is to be noted that any sum was found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source is not satisfactory in the opinion of the lower authorities, the same can be added as unexplained cash credits in the b…

Sri Ponnaiyah Ramajayathammal Eductional & Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 1884/CHNY/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ramasamy, Sr. StandingFor Respondent: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, IRS, CIT

Section 132Section 133Section 144Section 153A

…xplanation the Assessing Officer had added the above said amount with the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits. The same view is supported by the following judgments:- 01. Sunsathi Dayal vs. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801. 02. Vasanthi Bai vs. CIT(Bom) 213 ITR 805 03. Srilekha Banerii and others vs. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112. It is to be noted that any sum was found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source is not satisfactory in the opinion of the lower authorities, the same can be added as unexplained cash credits in the b…

ACIT, Trichy vs. Shri P.Janakar, Dindigul

ITA 649/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ramasamy, Sr. StandingFor Respondent: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, IRS, CIT

Section 132Section 133Section 144Section 153A

…xplanation the Assessing Officer had added the above said amount with the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits. The same view is supported by the following judgments:- 01. Sunsathi Dayal vs. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801. 02. Vasanthi Bai vs. CIT(Bom) 213 ITR 805 03. Srilekha Banerii and others vs. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112. It is to be noted that any sum was found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source is not satisfactory in the opinion of the lower authorities, the same can be added as unexplained cash credits in the b…

ACIT, Trichy vs. Shri R.Viswanathan, Dindigul

ITA 462/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ramasamy, Sr. StandingFor Respondent: Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnan, IRS, CIT

Section 132Section 133Section 144Section 153A

…xplanation the Assessing Officer had added the above said amount with the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits. The same view is supported by the following judgments:- 01. Sunsathi Dayal vs. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801. 02. Vasanthi Bai vs. CIT(Bom) 213 ITR 805 03. Srilekha Banerii and others vs. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112. It is to be noted that any sum was found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source is not satisfactory in the opinion of the lower authorities, the same can be added as unexplained cash credits in the b…

01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC)

What is 01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC) authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 01. Sunsathi Dayal v. CIT (SC)

Jawaharlal Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Sham Gulabrai Tulsyani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Naraindas Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Naraindas Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Partab Gulabrai Tulsiani, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Narendra Sampatlal Bafna, Ahmednagar

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

Ajay Malshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. JCIT 31(1), Mumbai

Kailash A Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 13(1)(3), Mumbai

Shri Krishna Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

P.Murugesan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ACIT, Trichy vs. P.Murugesan, Thanjavur

Sri Ponnaiyah Ramajayathammal Eductional & Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ACIT, Trichy vs. Shri P.Janakar, Dindigul

ACIT, Trichy vs. Shri R.Viswanathan, Dindigul