How many judgments cite Sumati Dayal v. CIT?

1,967 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#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 366,470 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

Read the full judgment

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

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.…

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

…ing 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 (SC)]. We also find merit in the findings of the lower authorities that the assessee was regularly depositing cash sales into bank accounts throughout the year and was incurring routine business expenses in cash, which clearly contradicts the plea that cash was being hoarded for several years due to apprehension of bank account interference. Such…

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

…se 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 Modi vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2009-10 - 11– is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real. Applying these principles, the impounded documents in the present cas…

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

Prafulla Kumar Malakar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 134/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata Kalawati Investments & Vs. Trading P. Ltd. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCK1559L Appearances: Assessee represented by : Amit Kr. Shah, Adv. Department represented by : Pradip Dungdung, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 12-February-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 20-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order…

Anil Kumar Gupta, Subhash Ganj Dabra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Pursuhottam Das Company, (Appeals) Subhash Ganj, Dabra Dabra, Dabra Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh Pan : Agnpg8041L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Alok Dhingra, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…sh being deposited is out of his savings, cash sales and recovery of outstandings. 2 | P a g e 8.2.4. In absence of any supporting evidences, I have to rely on the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, which elaborated the principle of "preponderance of probabilities in the civil cases, particularly in the context of Income Tax Law. This Principle plays a crucial role in adjudicating cases where absolute proof is not possible and decisions must be based on probable explanation rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasised that in…

ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e year, the same stock had been used to make the sales. For this also, the ld. AO concluded that the assessee had gone to shown bogus sales. He thereafter, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT 156 ITR 507 (SC) as also the case of Mcdowell and Co. reported in 154 ITR 148 (SC) to hold that the income tax authorities were allowed to go behind the transactions and examine whether it was genuine or avoidance of tax through colourable devices which was not permissible. Using the VAT returns filed the asse…

Multi Mantech International Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3480/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pallav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

…and unsubstantiated by any cogent evidence/materials. We are therefore, of the considered view that in the instant case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumati Dayal V CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC), in the context of the surrounding circumstances as well as the human probabilities, aptly and fully apply. We are also fortified by the decision of ITAT Kolkata Bench dated 07.03.2023, rendered in the case of Tarasafe International P. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2023) 153 taxmann.com 282 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein it was held that where it was r…

Rasila Lalitkumar Cholera, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 7544/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…is understood that the share transactions are not genuine. The share price movements were deemed commercially unreasonable. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court precedent in the cases of Durga Prasad More v. CIT(1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, the claim of the Appellant could not be accepted and the facts presented, the appellant's grounds for appeal are dismissed as unsubstantiated as the presence of supporting documents alone could 6 I.T.A. No. 7544/Mum/2025 not prove genuineness when the surrounding circumstances clearly suggested otherwise, it is held that the transactions were n…

Hollis Vitrified Private Limited, Morbi, Gujarat, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot, Gujarat, India

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ore a Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities" This test of human probability has again been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801 (SC), wherein it was specifically pronounced that revenue authorities are supposed to consider the surrounding circumstances and apply human probability.The principles which emerge where sums of money are credited as Share Capital/Premium are: (i). The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the identity…

M/S Bhagyesh A. Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5865/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv, & Akshay Pawar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…nce from Search: The Appellant did not discharge the onus under section 69C. The search provided direct evidence of the syndicate's hawala operations, linking to the Appellant's supplier. Judicial Precedents: Hon'ble Supreme Court in SumatiDayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC): Held that apparent must be considered real unless disproved; however, where surrounding circumstances (like investigation findings) indicate sham transactions, the burden shifts to the assessee to prove genuineness. Conclusion The CIT (A)'s order is a well-reasoned and legally sound decision that correctly appreciated the facts of the case…

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 7057/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5226/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 7057/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S Shring Construction Company Pvt. Vs Acit/Dcit, Ltd., D-245, Nehru Colony, Haridwar Circle-2, Road, Dehradun Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr4560L Assessee By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals Ita Nos. 5226/Del/2016 &

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

…dispute that it had not satisfied the clinching test(s) of genuineness and creditworthiness thereof in both the lower proceedings. His case before us is that the assessee had filed some supportive evidence to this effect. We quote Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 that mere filing of such documentary evidence does not ipso facto absolve the assessee from proving the genuineness of it’s impugned cash credits. We thus reject it’s instant latter substantive ground in very terms. This assessee’s “quant…

M/S Shring Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 5226/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

Uday Uttamrao Nevase, Pune vs. The Assessing Officer / Assessment Unit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2606/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

…d income and, therefore, the Revenue's appeal was allowed restoring the order of the AO. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell & Company Ltd. (supra) and the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman89/214 ITR 801 (SC) 12 wherein the former case dealt with tax planning and not on sham ITA No.2606/PUN/2025 [A] transactions and in the later case, the inference was based upon test of human probabilities with the assessee's version on facts was unbelievable and hence, was to be discarded. In all these decisions, the judicial conclusion is clearly set out that…

DCIT - 19(1), Mumbai, Lalbaugh vs. Bharat Ramji Bhai Manek, Grant Road Mumbai

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

ITA 4339/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250

…. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), the Apex Court held that courts must judge evidence by applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances, rejecting apparent transactions if they mask the true intent, Similarly, in Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), it was ruled that artificial transactions lacking substance must be disregarded, even if documented. Bombay High Court Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. PCIT (2018) 89taxmann.com 196: The Court upheld the addition of LTCG from penny stock transactions as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, noting the lack of credible evidence to support the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs. Adhunik Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1069/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…eferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal confirmed the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal referred to the decision of CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and also in Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC), to further record on the basis of the facts that the assessee had furnished the details such as copy of ledger account, bank statements, income tax returns, balance sheet etc. It was also recorded that notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said parties which were duly responded by them. The identity of the parties could n…

V Gayathri, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1871/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Jecintha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1871/Chny/2025 'नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Gayathri, Income Tax Officer, No.114, West Mada Street, vs. Ward -1, Krishnagiri – 635 001. Krishnagiri. [PAN:AHHPG-7395-L ] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Jecintha, Advocate *+यथ) क, ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T…