Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801Supreme Court of India1995#12 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.

1,967

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 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 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price riggingcolourable devicepreponderance of probabilitybogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)entry operatoraddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionaccommodation entryshare application money

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3)(1), Mumbai, Kautliya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. Nikunj Ambalal Patel (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4303/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4303/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Rampriya Raghavan
Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…books of account?' 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the AO without appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, wherein it was held that the tax authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the realities and the matter has to be considered by applying test of human probabilities?" 3. The assessee has also raised the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No.1: The Learned A.O. erred in making addition on grounds not formin…

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raichand Parasmal Chokshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, 305, Ashirwad Building, Lalabaug 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaapc6486C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, Huf Lalabaug 305, Ashirwad Building, Mumbai 400012 Vs. 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaahr1005A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Umang Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are In The Case Of An Individual & Huf Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- Ay 2017-18 24/1060184522(1) Dated 29.01.2024 For Individual & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064573907(1), Dated 02.05.2024 For The Huf, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.05.2023 & 21.04.2023, Respectively For Individual & Huf For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Appeal In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Is By The Individual & That In Ita No. 3374/Mum/2024 Is By The Huf With The Present Individual As Its Karta. Common Issue Is Involved In Both The Appeals By The Revenue, Raising Identical Grounds Except For Variation In The Quantum Of Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Grounds Taken By The Revenue In The Case Of Individual In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Umang Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 144Section 68

…o. 6 of 2022 dated 14.06.2022. 8. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order of the CIT(A) ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the decisions in Durga Prasad More(1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumati Dayal (1995) 80 Taxmann 89(SC)/(1995] (1995] ITR ITR 801(SC) / |1995) CTR CTR (SC (SC), rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where under it was held that the Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidence before it by applying the test of human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances which exercise had been done by the Assessing Officer?" 9. "The appeal is being f…

DCIT, Muzaffarnagar vs. M/S. Mittal Construction Unit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 3752/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…order). 10 CO No.91/Del/2023 Address of unsecured loan/creditors (pg. 05 00 of CIT(A) & PG 44 of AO's order) is same then why notice issued u/s 133(0) were not complied Human probabilities should be considered to break the corporate veil. [Sumati Dayal v.CIT 214 ITR 80).” 11. On the other hand, ld. AR heavily relied on the findings of Ld CIT(A). 12. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the assessee had filed and submitted additional evidences before ld. CIT(A) and after considering the remand report of AO, the Ld CIT(A) considered the submissions in detail and discuss…

Mr. Mushtak Musa Patel, Jalgaon vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Pne-W-(25)-(3), Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1035/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…whereas the taxpayer has evidently not provide a satisfactory explanation for such discrepancies in its books of accounts and other documents and has hence been assessed adversely. It is also noted that, in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT on Taxation (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)- the finding of the Hon. Supreme Court of India in this case of Sumati Dayal is a clear example of the application of the principle that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that it is not the real, and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to f…

Shyam Sunder Baheti, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 89/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Shreya JhawarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 68

…, the invoices furnished by the appellant cannot be considered as genuine. Therefore, by taking note of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs., Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs., 5 ITA.No.89/Hyd./2025 CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that the appellant could not establish the genuineness of source of cash deposited during demonetization period and accordingly, rejected the explanation of assessee and upheld the additions made towards cash deposited u/sec.68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribuna…

M/S. Greens Farm Tech Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1835/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT

…nnel is not sufficient enough. As such, the same (genuineness) should also be proved by circumstantial/ surrounding evidences as held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and in case of Smt. Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801. 25. The last stage comes to verify the creditworthiness of the parties. The term creditworthiness as per Black Law Dictionary refers as: . Page 12 of 14 "creditworthy, adj. (1924) (Of a borrower) financially sound enough that a lender will extend credit in the belief default is unlikely; fiscally healthy- creditworthiness. 26. Similarly in The…

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Ajay Bakliwal, Kota

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

ITA 1413/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1413/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 ACIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Ajay Bakliwal C 6 Vallabh Bari, Vallabh Bari, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7775 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearin

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…in Para 28 of the assessment order. The CIT(A) failed to consider these observations holistically. 2. Unreliable Cash Book: • The AO identified material discrepancies in the cash book, supported by seized documents. • As held in Sumati Dayal v. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)], evidence must be corroborated with surrounding circumstances and human probabilities. 3. Unsubstantiated Withdrawals: • The assessee failed to substantiate that "30,00,000/- was withdrawn specifically for business expenses or retained as claimed. • Judicial precedents (P Mohanakala v. CIT [(2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)]) establish that unexpla…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 270A

…cape tax liability. 2. Contradiction Between Returns: • Either the original return filed under Section 153A or the revised return is false. The appellant has failed to establish which one is accurate. • The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)] held that claims contrary to human probabilities and devoid of credible evidence must be rejected. 3.3. Assessee's Team of Accountants and Professional Background 1. Professional Background of the Assessee: • The appellant, a qualified civil engineer with over 35 years of experience, is not unfamiliar with financial and tax matters. 2. Acce…

Rambilas S Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3238/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69

…e mode of acquisition of the shares by the Assessee, unusual rise in the price of shares, findings of the investigation wing and analysis of the transactions and by taking refuge of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati P. Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801, ultimately treated the sale price of the shares amounting to Rs.1,80,85,010/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and taxable u/s 115BBE of the Act and added the same to the income of the Assessee. The AO also made 3 Mr. Rambilas S Agarwal the addition of Rs.5,20,650/- being commission @ 3% of Rs.1,73,55,010/- and added the same in th…

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 17/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

…essee has cursorily just stated that the construction work is in progress at the time of assessment proceedings ongoing u/s 143(3) of IT Act earlier. In this context, the landmark judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 wherein it is observed that "the apparent must be considered as real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities"…

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 16/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

…essee has cursorily just stated that the construction work is in progress at the time of assessment proceedings ongoing u/s 143(3) of IT Act earlier. In this context, the landmark judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 wherein it is observed that "the apparent must be considered as real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities"…

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 15/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

…essee has cursorily just stated that the construction work is in progress at the time of assessment proceedings ongoing u/s 143(3) of IT Act earlier. In this context, the landmark judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 wherein it is observed that "the apparent must be considered as real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities"…

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 14/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

…essee has cursorily just stated that the construction work is in progress at the time of assessment proceedings ongoing u/s 143(3) of IT Act earlier. In this context, the landmark judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 wherein it is observed that "the apparent must be considered as real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities"…

M/S Accord Mediplus Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Pune

ITA 13/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke and Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 1Section 147Section 56(2)

…essee has cursorily just stated that the construction work is in progress at the time of assessment proceedings ongoing u/s 143(3) of IT Act earlier. In this context, the landmark judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 wherein it is observed that "the apparent must be considered as real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities"…

Sh. Trilok Chand Sain, Dausa vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1264/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144rSection 148Section 250Section 263

…esponse Reminder 142(1) 09/03/2023 14/03/2023 No response Final Show Cause Notice 23/03/2023 27/03/2023 No response  Despite multiple opportunities, the assessees intentionally refused to cooperate.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that the burden of proof shifts to the assessee to establish the genuineness of transactions, failing which the tax authorities are justified in drawing adverse inference.  In tax jurisprudence, courts have consistently held that assessees who exhibit non-cooperation during assessment proceedings cannot later seek remedial relief. Non-…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. Manidhara Realty LLP, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 327/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer Manidhara Realty Llp बनाम/ Ward-2(3)(1), Surat Room 501, International Business Centre, Vs. No.614, Aayakar Bhawan, Dumas Road, Piplod, Surat-395 0017 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcfm 2991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ew of Assessing Officer regarding addition made by the O under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act that there existed surrounding circumstances and without applying the test of human probability as laid down in the case of Smt. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee had furnished all the details to substantiate its claim for introduction of capital in accounts of the partners without appreciating the fact that the assessee had only furnished documents partly which…

Alok Kumar Jain, Pearl Pleasure vs. ACIT Cir-6, Jaipur, New Cerntral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Rajasthan

ITA 1191/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…en Rejoinder by the Assessee-Appellant submission filed during hearing on 16.01.2025 manipulation etc. Thus, case law relied upon is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to Assessee’s case in hand before Hon’ble Tribunal. xi. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 This judgment is related to human probabilities (SC) and circumstantial evidence on the scope of Section 68 of the Act and burden of proving CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR that apparent is not real. Heavy burden is 540 (SC) required to be discharged by department to prove that apparent is not real. It is trite law that burden of proving…

DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

ITA 526/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Aryan GroverFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

…fraudulent booking of LTCG/Loss and STCG, and, therefore, whether what appears to be apparent is real in the case of the assessee, is to be determined, only after analyzing the incriminating circumstances as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal vs CIT (214 ITR 801). 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the Short-Term Capital Gains of the assessee were real and genuine without analyzing the incriminating circumstances given the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21636/2024 in the case of Manoj Jain (HUF) again…

DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

ITA 525/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Aryan GroverFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

…fraudulent booking of LTCG/Loss and STCG, and, therefore, whether what appears to be apparent is real in the case of the assessee, is to be determined, only after analyzing the incriminating circumstances as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal vs CIT (214 ITR 801). 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the Short-Term Capital Gains of the assessee were real and genuine without analyzing the incriminating circumstances given the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21636/2024 in the case of Manoj Jain (HUF) again…

DCIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Grover, Nagpur

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

ITA 524/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Aryan GroverFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

…fraudulent booking of LTCG/Loss and STCG, and, therefore, whether what appears to be apparent is real in the case of the assessee, is to be determined, only after analyzing the incriminating circumstances as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal vs CIT (214 ITR 801). 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the Short-Term Capital Gains of the assessee were real and genuine without analyzing the incriminating circumstances given the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21636/2024 in the case of Manoj Jain (HUF) again…