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 367,368 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

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…k statement of the assessee which was submitted has not been proved." However while considering the explanation of the assessee, the revenue or Department cannot act unreasonably as held in the case of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). Where the assessee has shown all the evidence to substantiate the case, the same cannot be ingnored by the department and claim unsatisfactory. In the case of CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain (2010) 320 ITR 554, wherein the assessee showed all the proof available with him to prove the genuine sale of jewellery but the Assessing Officer disallowed th…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Shobha Tomar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 373/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Shobha Tomar DCIT, Vs. B-4, Govind Marg, Adarsh C.C.1, Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALPT 4876 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G. M. Mehta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anoop Singh, Ad…

Swarn Ganga Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1) Now DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 675/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 68

…t the assessee had unexplained cash and cooked up make belief story by showing these amounts as cash sales. 13. The Ld. AO after determining the above facts and upon relying the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 214 ITR 801, Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 1995 AIR 2109 , Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer 1986 AIR 649, Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in case of Hersh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005) in following paragraphs has held as follows: “7. In view of above detailed discussion and various legal and factual aspects of the case, it is con…

Bright Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…of the assessee company failed to appear in compliance to summons u/s 131 of the Act. The AO thereafter discussed the modus-operandi of these dummy companies and after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that revenue authorities are also supposed to consider the surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probability. The AO held that there was no reason in issuing shares at a 3 I.T.A. No.96/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bright Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. high premium. Finally the AO treated the share capital/share premium of Rs.…

Sapphire Trade Associates (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

….90/- per share thereby routing the funds were in the garb of share capital as issue of shares at premium of Rs. 90/- per share lacked justification and thereafter by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that the these transactions have to be ascertained on the basis of surrounding circumstances and thus treated the amount of share capital/share premium of Rs. 2,97,61,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 68 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the act dated 27.12.2016. 4. In t…

Manju Hiralal Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1026/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon'Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)

…hence the entire transactions resulting in long term capital gains should be considered as sham transactions. With regard to the test of human probability, the Ld CIT(A) referred to the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801)(SC) and Durga Prasad More (1971)(82 ITR 540)(SC). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had purchased 2 lakhs shares of M/s Grandma Trading Agencies P Ltd under preferential allotment in February, 2012. It was p…

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

…in the buyers' bank accounts cannot be attributed to the assessees. No fault can be found with the above finding recorded by the Tribunal. 15. Reliance placed by the counsel for the Revenue on the decision of the apex court in the case of Sumati Dayal [1995] 214 ITR 801 is wholly misplaced. In that case, the assessee therein had claimed income from horse races and the finding of fact recorded was that the assessee therein had not participated in races, but purchased winning tickets after the race with the unaccounted money. In the present case, the documentary evidence clearly shows that the transactions were at…

Shailesh K Patel-HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 68

…sed question mark on the genuineness of LTCG claim of the assessee. 17. The genuineness of transactions can be tested on the principle of preponderance of human probability as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). The documentary evidences in themselves, cannot be held as conclusive evidence of the transaction. When someone is deliberately entering into a transaction in shares of penny stock company, it is obvious that all the documentary evidences will be in order. After all, one has to establish the transactions with reference to the documentary ev…

Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…le to establish the genuineness of the transaction and in some cases, the identity and creditworthiness of the entities/persons who have been allocated shares of the assessee company is also under serious doubt. 22. In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Ld. CIT(A) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed upon the surrounding circumstances I.T.A No. 1199/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 18 Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT and application of test of human probabilities to the given set of facts in the following words:- “The transaction about purchase of winning ticket took place in secret and direct…

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajjay Agarwal (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.4295/Mum/2023 of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4295/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 250

…, the revenue authorities have rightly concluded that the assessee's claim about the long term capital gains from the sale of shares is not genuine." Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 has held that test of human probabilities should not be applied to verify whether any transactions is real or an attempt has been made to give it a colour of reality, in the case of the assessee, an attempt has been made to give color of reality to the transactions. In the case of the assessee, It is claimed that turnover of Rs. 58, 81, 01,027/-…

Suneel Kumar Agrawal, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. Income Tax Officer 3(5), Lakhimpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 112/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2017-18 Suneel Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Old Galla Mandi, Lakhimpur - Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri-262701 Pan Agfpa 3061J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 10.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Called The ‘Cit(A)’], Lucknow-3 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case, As Appearing From The Assessment Order, Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Trading Of Edible Oil, Food Grains, Khandsari, Sugar, Atta, Maida & Suji Etc. A Warrant U/S. 132A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) Was Served On The Assessee On 02.02.2017 & A Sum Of Rs.14,64,000/- Was Seized From The Possession Of The Assessee.

Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 69A

…d the same needed to be deleted. 5.0. Per contra, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative vehemently supported the orders of both the lower authorities and also relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court’s judgments in the case of ‘Sumati Dayal vs. CIT’ reported in 214 ITR 801 (SC) and another judgment in the case of ‘CIT vs. Durga Prasad More’ reported in 82 ITR 540 and submitted that the strong circumstantial evidence was against the assessee and, therefore, the addition had rightly been made. 8 5.1 The ld. DR further submitted that the contention of the assessee that the cash was required for emergency purpose was…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tvs Investments Lrd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

…ee cannot be said that it is opposed to the normal course of human thinking and conduct or human probabilities. This principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in two leading cases : (1) CIT v. Durgaprasad More (82 ITR 540) & (2) Sumathi Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) 15.1 Even applying this principle to the present case, we have difficulty in rejecting the assessee's plea as opposed to the normal course of human conduct The circumstances surrounding the case also, in our view, are not strong enough to justify the rejection of the assessee's plea as fantastic or outrageous. 16. We have also considered the ent…

Surendra Rameshwardas Gadodia, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the addition of total amount of Rs

ITA 4855/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh R Chourasia Sr. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…t and it is a manipulated transaction in collusion with the brokers to paint creditworthiness to the transaction and claim exemption u/s 10(38). This is in accordance with the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 214 ITR 801 (SC), that "the apparent must be considered the 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.” 8. In relation…

Ketan Harilal Mehta HUF by Its Karta Ketan H Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-33(2)(2) Mumbai Presently Juridiction With ITO 42(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 770/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ketan Harilal Mehta HUF Vs. ITO-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, KetanMehta)No.B/1101, BKC,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. PAN/GIR No. : AAEHK3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.AR Respondent by : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.DR Date of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against t…

Jet Air Agencies Pvt Ltd, West Bengal vs. Central Circle 2(3)Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 685/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Ward Central Circle-2(3), Room No. 10E, Kolkata-700073 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAACJ7798P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 685/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Income Tax, Room No. 10E, Kolkata-700073 Central…