How many judgments cite Sumati Dayal v. CIT?

1,964 judgments on BharatTax cite Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sumati Dayal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 115BBE.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801Supreme Court of India1995#11 most cited

What is Sumati Dayal v. CIT authority for?

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.

1,964

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sumati Dayal v CIT · Section 68 · human probabilities · genuineness of transaction · true nature of transaction · accommodation entry · bogus capital gains · penny stock · look behind apparent form · preponderance of probability · colourable device · unexplained loans

Also reported as

80 Taxmann 89125 CTR 124

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 115BBE Section 69C Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

price rigging colourable device preponderance of probability bogus ltcg penny stock section 10(38)entry operator addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction accommodation entry share application money

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

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

…ed CIT(A) is not justified as a statement and admission 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.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 239/NAG/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 239/NAG/2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) DCIT, Circle-4, Nagpur Shikha Indrakumar vs Agrawal, House No. 604, Near Santra Market, Empress Mill Road, Nagpur-440 018 PAN : AAJPC 3885 C Revenue Assessee Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Comm…

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 220/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 220/NAG/2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Indrakumar Ghisulal Nagpur vs Agrawal, 601, Near Santra Market, Empress Mill Road, Nagpur-440 018 PAN : AAJPC 3885 C Revenue Assessee Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Commiss…

LATE RAJESHAM RAGI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 776/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.776/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Late Ragi Rajesham, The Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Vs. Pin – 505 001. Telangana. Karimnagar. Pan Aaxpr4513J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Rv Nageshwar Sharma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri RV Nageshwar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 148

…Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407 (SC); Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay vs. CIT [2003] 2. 260 ITR 491 (Bom.); 3. CIT vs. Gita Duggal [2013] 357 itr 153 (Del.-HC); 4. ITO vs. C. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC); 5. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); 7.1. The learned DR submitted that when the assessee has received the payment of Rs.5 lakhs under the said Development Agreement, then this transaction of handing- over the possession of the land in question against the consideration constitute ‘transfer of immovable property’. 8. We have considered the rival submissions as well as releva…

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

ITA 254/NAG/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 234ASection 234CSection 254(1)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “NAGPUR” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. SP-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs AayakarBhavan, Near DPS School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [PAN: AACCG4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Mahavir Atal, CA Revenue by Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 26.03.2026 Order under section 254(1) of…

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

…iability of the evidence placed before a court or tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities". 7.8 Similarly, in a later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the theory that it is for alleger to prove that the apparent and not real, and observed that, "This, in our opinion, is a superficial approach to the problem. The matter has to be considered in the light of human probabilities.....Similarly the observation .. .that if it is alleged that these tickets were obt…

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

…ing 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 money. Finally, the assessees’ evidence…

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

…ITA No. 2607/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2607 /Del./2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Vs. ACIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi (Respondent) Vaneet Aggarwal, D-95, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi PAN: AGXPA8770A (Appellant) Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Shri K. Sampath, Adv, Shri V Rajkumar, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR 21/01/2026 13/03/2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM The Assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Com…

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

…(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 the genuineness of a transaction. 15. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the commission income is not supported by any documentary evidence whereas the seized material cl…

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

…spread over for 15 to 20 days? 3. Ground III - 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,…

PRODIGY INFOMATICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 15(2)(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed

ITA 2124/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishprodigy Infomatics Private Vs. Ito, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Limited Director Ito, 15(2)(4), Mumbai Plot No. D- 388, Midc, Ttc Aayakar Bhavan Industrial Area, Kukshet Mumbai- 400020 Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan/Gir No. Aadcp3211A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 18.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal.

Section 250Section 68

…lker & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 690, 694 (Cal), CIT vs. United Commercial Industries Co. (P) Ltd., (1991) 187 ITR 596, 599 (Cal.) that mere filing of confirmatory letters does not discharge the onus that lies on the assesse. 5.7 In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in view of section 68, where any sum is found to be credited in the books of an assesse for any previous year. the same may be charged to income-tax as income if the explanation of the assesse is not found to be satisfactory by the Assessing Officer. Reliance is also placed 6 on the decisions of the Hon'b…

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

…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 sum of Rs.1.32 crore, the appellant's explanation that four rel…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2921/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2020-2021) & I.T.A. No. 2922/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-2023) DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata, Office of the DCIT,CC-2(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4th Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata - 700107 …..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Dailmer Industries Private Limited, 67C, Balaram Dey Street, Beadon Street, S.O. Kolkata - 700006 [PAN: AABCD0836D] …..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Soumitra Ch…

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

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. VARUN JAISINGH ASHER, MUMBAI

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

ITA 8251/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Sushil Shengde, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(x)

…cuted with developer. Thus, the appellant has valid tenancy rights. Argument of the AO that the appellant was not a genuine tenant and had no independent tenancy rights, is not correct. The AO relied on decision given in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) to justify rejection of documentary evidence based on surrounding circumstances and decision given in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) to argue that tax planning through colourable devices should be struck down. Facts of these case laws are different from the facts of the appellant. Case Laws relied on by the AO…

RACHNA DIPESH LADDHA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(2) VADODARA GUJARAT, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1922/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

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

…161 (SC). Similarly, the surrounding circumstances and human probabilities are Rachna Dipesh Laddha vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 7– relevant in examining the explanation of the assessee, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). Applying these settled principles, we find that the learned CIT(A) has correctly upheld the additions and also validly exercised powers of enhancement after affording due opportunity to the assessee. 14. In view of the above discussion, and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with…

JERMELS ACCADEMY,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP,, SILIGURI

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Assessee are partly

ITA 2748/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 12A(2)Section 139Section 144Section 2(15)Section 250

…the satisfaction of the AO under section 69A is essentially a fact-finding exercise; unless the explanation is cogent and verifiable, the AO is well within his right to reject it reliance is placed on the decision rendered in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801 (SC)], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the test of human probabilities must be applied, and fanciful or uncorroborated explanations cannot be accepted. Applying these principles, I hold that the AO was justified in concluding that the cash deposits remained unexplained. 7.3.5 In view of the foregoing discussion. I find no infirmity in th…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s).: 2603/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s): 2011-12 Mark Steels Limited DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCM8187B Appearances: Assessee represented by : S.K. Tulsiyan Adv. and Lata Goyal, CA. Department represented by : Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 15-January-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 26-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the orde…

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

…215 (SC) dtd. 02.07.2015  B. Kishore Kumar 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.…

Showing 1–20 of 1,964 · Page 1 of 99

...