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 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 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

Deputy Commissoenr of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

…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…

ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Nilesh Pranlal Saglani, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2059/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ito-19(2)(4) Nilesh Pranlal Saglani Room No. 507 2/8-10-12, Ground 5Th Floor Vs. Floor, Dadiseth Agiary Piramal Chambers Lane, Kalbadevi Parel, Mumbai Road, Mumbai- 400 012. 400002. Pan : Aayps4855M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Asif KarmaliFor Respondent: Shri Rasik Tanna

Section 253Section 68Section 69C

…o. 6 of 2022 dated 14.06.2022. 7. "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] 2014 ITR 801(SC) /[1995) 125 CTR 124 (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?" 8. "The appeal is u/s 253 of the…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1) (1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shah Foils Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1922/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1852/Ahd/2019 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1922/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 1. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. 1. The Ito, Ward-4(1)(3) बनाम/ 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 V/S. Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 2. The Ito, 2. M/S.Shah Foils Ltd. Ward-4(1)(3) 26, Block-B, Galaxy Ahmedabad-380 015 Signature, Science City Rd Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaics 0490 F (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Thaker, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 23.10.2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 Paras Bhavani Steel Pvt. Ltd.) confirming the cash payments for clandestine purchases of SS Strips. The AO applied the principles laid down in the case(s) of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC), emphasizing that mere denial by the assessee cannot override strong circumstantial evidence. The transaction, being in cash, had no formal documentation, which aligned with the nature of unaccounted transactions. Invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and Collector of Customs vs. D. Bhoormull (1974 AIR 859), the AO held that once circum…

M/S. Shah Foils Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed and the

ITA 1852/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…. vs. ITO Asst. Year: 2011-12 9 Paras Bhavani Steel Pvt. Ltd.) confirming the cash payments for clandestine purchases of SS Strips. The AO applied the principles laid down in the case(s) of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC), emphasizing that mere denial by the assessee cannot override strong circumstantial evidence. The transaction, being in cash, had no formal documentation, which aligned with the nature of unaccounted transactions. Invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and Collector of Customs vs. D. Bhoormull (1974 AIR 859), the AO held that once circum…

DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Ascent Buildhome Developers Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Providing documents such as PAN or bank statements is insufficient without further evidence of the transaction's authenticity. ii. CIT vs Durga Prasad More Ο Citation: (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) iii. Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Ο Citation: (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) Key Finding: Evidence must be weighed in the context of reality and surrounding circumstances. Mere documentation does not suffice to establish transaction genuineness if doubt persists. 4. Non-Compliance with AO's Request for Documentation The AO issued a letter on 26.02.2016 requesting detailed information on internal development expenses…

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 3912 & 3941/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajnish Bharti HUF, ITO, Circle 20(3)(1), 4/281, Opp. Britannia Biscuit Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Company, Reay Road, Darukhana, Mumbai. Mumbai-10. PAN NO. AAEHR 6595 K Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 4378 & 4377/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 ITO-41(3)(3), BKC Rajnish Bharti HUF, 436, 4th floor, Kautaliya Bhavan, 4/281, Opp. Britannia Biscuit Mumbai-400051. Vs. Company, Reay R…

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 148

Suburban Builders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1135/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kapadia, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…d through banking channels, does not itself evident that the share capitals are genuine, unless those are really genuine and are supported with documentary evidences. The AO also relied on various judgment including in the cases of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 & CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and held that it is settled proposition that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the share capital, when the transaction is claimed as genuine by the assessee. However, in this case this onus has not been discharged by the assessee. The assessee company has failed to establish iden…

Quartz Commecial Pvt Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)

ITA - 10 / 2025HC Delhi21 Jan 2025

Section 250(6)Section 260A

…e business of entry operations. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) in my opinion is fully justified in bringing to tax the commission which is prevalent in this type of business. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 80 l and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 fully supports the case of the Revenue. In this view of the matter and in view of the detailed discussion by the CIT(A) on this issue, I do not find any infirmity in of Rs.7,85,000/- made by the A.O. Accordingly, I uphold the same. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismi…

ACIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Goneka Treading, Mumbai

In the result, all the three captioned appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1524/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

…to be illegal, the claim of bad debt cannot be allowed. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on preponderance of probabilities in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). The Sr.DR further pointed out that the assessee did not comply with Accounting Standard AS-5 and prayed for reversal of the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee entered into the contract prior to the action of EOW and suspensi…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Goenka Trading Co., Mumbai

In the result, all the three captioned appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1425/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Goenka Trading Co., Mumbai

In the result, all the three captioned appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1424/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

…while arriving at conclusion to affirmly say that the transactions entered into by the assessee in purchase and sale of LTCG are not genuine and he has taken bogus entry of LTCG the guiding Supreme Court Judgments are as under: (i) Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) (ii) Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) (iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd 154 ITR 148 (SC) (iv) Asst. CIT V. Som Nath Mani (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) (vi) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) (vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) (viii) CIT V. Biju Patnai…

Sirona Dental Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4639/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ( (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…rket logic. The presence of documents only proves the movement of shares and money, not the genuineness of the underlying intention, which was to launder unaccounted money. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), has consistently held that the Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature. In Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the Court held that apparent transactions must be tested against human probabilities and surrounding circumstances, if unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, Her…

Meenakshi Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(6), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4710/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…he learned Assessing Officer appears to have issued section 133(6) notice to M/s. Oxygen Projects Ltd. who failed to respond. The assessee has also not proved genuineness, creditworthiness of the said entity all along. I thus quote Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Co. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) to conclude that learned lower authorities herein have rightly added the impugned unsecured loans of Rs.25 lakhs in assessee’s hands. Ordered accordingly. 7. No other ground or argument has been pressed. 8. This assessee’s appeal is di…

Jitender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-32(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3317/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2017-18] Assistant Commissioner Of Viney Gems & Jewellery Private Income Tax, Circle-25(1), Limited, Room No.192A, 1St Floor, Vs B-172, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, C.R. Building, Delhi-110002 Delhi-110034 Pan-Aafca9381G Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Shri Maneesh Upneja, Ca Revenue By Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2025

Section 206Section 68

…ed the balance amount of Rs.2,95,78,312/- (Rs.3,02,00,000 – Rs.6,21,688/-) u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. In this regard, the Assessing Officer relied upon the test of human probability and relied upon the following decisions:- i. CIT vs Durga Prasad More (214 ITR 801)(SC) ii. Hersh Win Chadha Vs DCIT (ITA Nos.3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2015)(Del. Trib.) iii. McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs The Commercial Tax Officer 1986 AIR 649: 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), in the statement of facts, it was submitted that the assessee i.e. Viney Gems and…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.262/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Hitesh Mangilal Jain v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward, 2405 Panchratna M.P. Marg, बनाम 19(1)(5), 502, 5th Floor, Opera House, Charni Road, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400004, Maharashtra Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AABPJ2835R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Income Tax Officer, 502, 5th v/s. Hitesh Mangilal Jain Floor, Piramal Chamber, बनाम 2405 Panchratna M.P. Marg, Lalbaug,…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 261/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.261/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA No.262/MUM/2024 Hitesh Mangilal Jain (A.Y. 2014-15) v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward, 2405 Panchratna M.P. Marg, Opera House, Charni Road, Mumbai - 400004, Maharashtra 19(1)(5), 502, 5th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AABPJ2835R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी ITA No.257/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) Income Tax Officer, 502, 5th v/s. Hitesh Mangilal Jain F…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

ITA 257/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

Harish Jain, Kota vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Kota

ITA 626/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ddition has been made considering seized documents, the admission made by the appellant and also the test of human probability suggests that the addition made is correct. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)/[1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC)/([1995] 125 CTR 124 (SC)[28-03-1995) held as under- "It is, no doubt, true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within ex…