CIT v. Durga Prasad More

82 ITR 540Supreme Court of India1971#21 most cited

What is CIT v. Durga Prasad More authority for?

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.

1,579

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Durga Prasad More · 82 ITR 540 · test of human probabilities · apparent is real until proven otherwise · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness · circumstantial evidence · preponderance of probabilities · section 68 addition · reliability of evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69CSection 69A

Issues it is cited on

colourable devicepenny stockentry operatoraddition under section 68genuineness of the transactionaddition u/s 68section 10(38)share application moneyaccommodation entryunexplained cash creditsection 131loose papers

Judgments citing CIT v. Durga Prasad More

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…body can set up any fund bypassing the specific provisions of law, flaunt actuarial valuation and claim any amount of payment as deduction. Then the door to tax evasion, in the language Supreme Court in another context in the case of CIT v, Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) will be wide open.. What is specially a matter of serious concern in this case is that the payment has been not made through the profit and loss account but from reserve. • Section 40A(7) and 40A(9) specifically prohibit allowance of such deduction. • Section 40A(9) states in clear terms that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any sum pa…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…body can set up any fund bypassing the specific provisions of law, flaunt actuarial valuation and claim any amount of payment as deduction. Then the door to tax evasion, in the language Supreme Court in another context in the case of CIT v, Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) will be wide open.. What is specially a matter of serious concern in this case is that the payment has been not made through the profit and loss account but from reserve. • Section 40A(7) and 40A(9) specifically prohibit allowance of such deduction. • Section 40A(9) states in clear terms that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any sum pa…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. APOORVA SAROVAR, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 181/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.181/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Dcit, Apoorva Sarovar, Central Circle-2, Vs. Kurnool – 518 004. Guntur – 522 004. State Of Andhra Pradesh. State Of Andhra Pradesh. Pan Abefa4123B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca For Revenue : Sri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, V.P. :

For Appellant: Sri C Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 133A

…n on behalf of the assessee is an admissible evidence 6 ITA.No.181/VIZ./2025 against the assessee. He has also relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). He has also relied upon the Order of the Assessing Officer. 6. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that nothing was found or impounded during the survey except the statement of the partner of the assessee firm was recorded on 14.02.2018. He has filed copy of the statement and submitted that…

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

…ringing some adverse material on record in support of the said allegation Reference in this regard can be made to the following decisions: - Kalwa Devadattam v. UOI: 49 ITR 165 (SC) - CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull: 87 (ITR 349 (SC) - CIT vs Durga Prasad More: 82 ITR 540 (SC) P a g e | 29 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) 61. Under such circumstances, the assessing officer has grossly erred in alleging that the appellant company failed to discharge the onus placed upon it to prove the genuineness of the transactions undertaken by the appellant. 62. It is further submitted that the assessing officer has failed t…

ITO, WARD 21(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. M/S RETRO FOOTWEARS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3291/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Ito, Ward-21(1), M/S Retro Footwear Private Limited, Room No.220, C.R. Building, J-19, Udyog Nagar, I.P. Estate, Vs New Delhi-110041 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aadcr3787M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod Kumar, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…see had deposited the cash into the bank account in SBN post Page 2 of 6 demonetization which was realized from cash sales. The Ld. CIT(A) has not taken into account the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC).” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the company is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of footware. The assessee company e-filed its Return of Income on 02.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.14,78,840/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. Statutory notice…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), DELHI vs. PASHUPATI ROAD CARRIER PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2490/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumardcit, Circle 19(1), Vs. Pashupati Road Carrier Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 70A/47, Ground C.R. Building, Floor, Moti Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 002 Rama Road Indl. Area, New Delhi – 110 045 (Pan: Aadcp8319H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Baldev Raj, Ca & Sh. Manish Upneja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2026 Date Of Order : 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

For Appellant: Sh. Baldev Raj, CA & Sh. Manish UpnejaFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CIRCLE 19(1), vs. PASHUPATI ROAD CARRIER DELHI PVT. LTD., ROOM NO. 221, 2ND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 70A/47, GROUND C.R. BUILDING, FLOOR, MOTI NAGAR, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 110 002 RAMA ROAD INDL. AREA, NEW DELHI – 110 045 (PAN: AADCP8319H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Sh. Baldev Raj, CA & Sh. Manish Upneja, CA REVENUE BY : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 24.02.2026 Date of Order : 20.03.2026 O R D E R PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM : This appe…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1), MOHALI vs. SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KHRAR PUNJAB

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…h different bank accounts would be nothing but a case of introduction of unaccounted money in the books of the assessee. Applying the test of preponderance of human probability as expounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 as well as in Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801), the assessee’s claim qua genuineness of unsecured loans was to be rejected. It was alleged by Ld. AO that the assessee used its related / family concerns to route its unaccounted money by creating number of layers of transactions and using them as colorable device to finally introduce its own unaccounted m…

SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,KHARAR, RUPNAGAR vs. DCIT WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH JAO ITO 6(1) MOHALI, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1066/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…h different bank accounts would be nothing but a case of introduction of unaccounted money in the books of the assessee. Applying the test of preponderance of human probability as expounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 as well as in Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801), the assessee’s claim qua genuineness of unsecured loans was to be rejected. It was alleged by Ld. AO that the assessee used its related / family concerns to route its unaccounted money by creating number of layers of transactions and using them as colorable device to finally introduce its own unaccounted m…

NARAYANLAL BHANAJI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 588/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pallavi, CIT-DR & Shri Rameshwar P
Section 115BSection 132Section 153CSection 68

…ssessee has not brought any material to demonstrate that the statement recorded during search proceedings was incorrect or that the seized documents did not relate to him. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) has held that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the transaction and are not bound to accept the apparent as real. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) has held that the test of human probabilities can be applied to determine…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANGHVI DHANRUPJI DEVAJI & CO., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6015/MUM/2025[AAQFS6338H]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Prusethdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sanghvi Dhanrupji Income Tax Central Circle Devaji & Co. 5(3), Mumbai 33, Mumba Devi Road, Room No. 426, 4Th Floor, Dagina Bazar, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaqfs6338H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M B Sanghvi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ground I - Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting/Allowing Relief In Respect Of The Addition Of Rs.

Section 250Section 40A(3)(a)Section 68

…II - Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO ignoring the legal principle as laid down by Hon'ble 3 Supreme Court in SumatiDayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) and CIT v. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540), wherein it has been held that apparent facts cannot be accepted as conclusive if they defy the test of human probabilities? 4. Ground IV - Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,97,711/- u/s 40A(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being cash purchases above Rs. 20,000/…

TOMAN SINGH SAHU,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 499/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.499/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Toman Singh Sahu H. No.1246, Vivekanand Ashram, Ram Kund Para, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Epyps2394L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…s inherently improbable, especially in the case of a retired bank employee who is well-versed with financial practices. This contention does not satisfy the test of human probability as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and reaffirmed in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). These judgments make it clear that tax authorities are 4 Toman Singh Sahu Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) not bound to accept self-serving or bald assertions and must look into surrounding circumstances and human conduct to arrive at a logical conclusion. As for the remaining su…

DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAILMER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2922/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…reated the unsecured loans raised during the year as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and made an addition of ₹ 5,49,50,000/- to the income of the assessee by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT v Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT ((1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). The ld. AO also disallowed the interest paid by the assessee on unsecured loans including loans which were borrowed in the earlier years as well as during the year amounting to Rs. 22,00,215/-. 6. The ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the submissions and e…

DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DAILMER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2921/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…reated the unsecured loans raised during the year as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and made an addition of ₹ 5,49,50,000/- to the income of the assessee by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT v Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT ((1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). The ld. AO also disallowed the interest paid by the assessee on unsecured loans including loans which were borrowed in the earlier years as well as during the year amounting to Rs. 22,00,215/-. 6. The ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the submissions and e…

ITO (INT TAXN)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SRINIVAS RAO DONTINENI, MEDAK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Hyd/2026 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant In Appeal) (Respondent/Cross Objector) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sudarshan, Ca Shri Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sv Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, Dated 19.08.2025, Co No.01/Hyd/2026 Ito (It)-1, Hyd Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni

For Appellant: Shri Sudarshan, CAFor Respondent: Shri SV Siva Prasad, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…s erred in accepting the sources of cash deposits as earlier cash withdrawals by relying on cash flow statements without applying the test of human probabilities as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) (SC)? 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in accepting the sources of cash deposits as earlier cash withdrawals without appreciating the fact that there was huge time gap between the withdrawals and deposits and also assessee failed to establish the nexus with supporting evidencе? 6. An…

MARK STEELS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…nadequate when creditworthiness and genuineness remain unproved in light of adverse material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1995]80Taxman 89 (SC) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) permits tax authorities to look beyond facade and test claims on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities, which is apt where Investigation Wing traced cash deposits and layering to shell entities. For Primary Merchants, while identity stands evidenced by ITR acknowledgement and a confirmation, there is no credible demonstration of l…

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

ITA 44/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…vs DCIT (Madras HC) dtd. 03.11.2014  PCIT vs Swati Bajaj (Calcutta HC) dtd. 14.06.2022  Suman Poddar vs ITO (2019) ITAT New Delhi  NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 412 ITR 161 (SC)  CIT vs Sumati Dayal (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)  Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)  GCT Industries Ltd. vs ACIT 65 ITD 380 ITAT Mumbai Bench  Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs CIT 293 ITR 565 (Allahabad HC)  Marg Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. vs DCIT (2023) 147 taxmann.com 130 (Madras) 9. In the rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of the assessee refuted all the submission of ld. CIT–DR for the Revenue. The ratio of decisio…

PATEL WINES,KHEDA vs. THE DY.CIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1740/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 250

…dings, or any restriction on Patel Wines vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 7– operation of bank accounts which allegedly compelled the assessee to retain such a large amount of cash for years together. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [(1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)] has held that taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities, and that apparent facts may be disregarded if they are contrary to human conduct and probabilities. The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801…

ROHITKUMAR CHINUBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1961/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…rated by registered instruments, the assessee cannot be permitted to selectively accept one portion of the document and conveniently disown the remaining portion merely because it is adverse to him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) has held that taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of a transaction. Similarly, in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), it has been held that the apparent must be considered real only until it ITA Nos. 1961 & 1960/Ahd/2025 Rohitkumar Chinubhai Modi & Saurabhbhai Rohitbhai…

SAURABHBHAI ROHITBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1960/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…rated by registered instruments, the assessee cannot be permitted to selectively accept one portion of the document and conveniently disown the remaining portion merely because it is adverse to him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) has held that taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of a transaction. Similarly, in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), it has been held that the apparent must be considered real only until it ITA Nos. 1961 & 1960/Ahd/2025 Rohitkumar Chinubhai Modi & Saurabhbhai Rohitbhai…

PRAFULLA KUMAR MALAKAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KALAWATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING P LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…e judicial principles laid down in the matter of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC). 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not taking cognizance of the judicial principles laid down in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500: [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). 11. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the assessee is a beneficiary of booking fictitious loss as well as ingenuine profit in pre-arranged accommodation entry and falls under exceptional clause 3.1(h) of the CBDT's Circular No.5 of 2024. 12. That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or…

Showing 1–20 of 1,579 · Page 1 of 79

...