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

Mahtab Chand Agarwal, Lucknow vs. DCIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 515/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Mahtab Chand Agarwal, V. The Dcit-6 15, Ajanta Market, Near P.K. Complex, Ram Gurdwara, Nishatganj, Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226010. Lucknow-208001. Pan:Aeipa6452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 04 11 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 01 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT- DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Oceanic Products exporting Co. vs CIT (2000) 241 ITR 497 (Ker) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 and in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) to hold that the explanation submitted by the assessee for the cash deposits in his bank account was not satisfactory, and therefore, added back a sum of Rs.36,07,338/- u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee went before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) records in his order that at the appellate stage, the assessee h…

Navgrahaa Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai

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

ITA 4786/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnavgrahaa Jewels Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner 7(1)(1), Unit No.341 & 342, Pragati Mumbai Industrial Esrate, N. M. Joshi Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai-400011 Pan: Aaecn0220G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 11.11.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR DR

Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14bSection 250Section 69C

…16. Under Section 69C, where expenditure is unexplained and source not satisfactorily explained, it is deemed income. The burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness of transactions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SumatiDayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that apparent must be treated as real only if supported by evidence; otherwise, additions are warranted based on surrounding circumstances. The Bombay High Court in PCIT v. DrishaImpex (P.) Ltd. ([2025] 173 taxmann.com 571 Assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the purchases since the Assessee could not produce ev…

Sanowar Ali Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1503/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 282

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 1503/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sanowar Ali Khan ITO, Ward-25(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: DSQPK0325F Appearances: Assessee represented by : Rajesh Singh, AR. Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 26-November-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 28-January-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income…

Suresh Chand Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4379/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2009-10 Suresh Chand Goel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O 9, Atta-Ur-Rehman Lane, Ward 47(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 054. Pan: Afipg7505H

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…of transactions lies upon the assessee and mere production of ledger accounts does not discharge this burden unless supported by independent 10 corroborative evidence. Reliance is placed on CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC). (v) The assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 is founded on material gathered during survey proceedings dated 9th March, 2016, which has revealed structured transactions that could not be substantiated by contemporaneous documentary evidence. Further, non-filing of appeal due to low tax effect does not amount to acceptance on merits. Reliance is pla…

JCIT(OSD), Circle 111, Dehradun, Subhash Road vs. M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Bahadrabad Industrial Area, Haridwar

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 82/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 82/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Jcit(Osd), Vs M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Circle-111, F-104, Bahadrabad Industrial Dehradun-248001 Area, Haridwar-249402 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs3475L Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074074259(1) Dated 05.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

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

…This is what leaves the Revenue aggrieved. 4. Both the learned representatives vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. The Revenue quotes various landmark judicial precedent in 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 we ought to examine the assessee’s relevant evidence and pleadings herein 10 Suryanchal Furnitech regarding source of its’ impugned cash deposits in light of human probability(ies) after removing all blinkers. Mr. Rana next submits t…

Kameshwar Alloys and Steels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…companies failed to appear in compliance to summons u/s 131 of the Act and the Assessing Officer thereafter discussed the modus- operandi of these 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 Assessing Officer held that there was no reason in issuing shares at a high premium and finally the Assessing Officer despite furnishing extensive documentary evidence by the assessee made an addition of ₹2,0…

Naresh Arora, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3144/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…w that mere denial does not discharge this burden; the assessee must furnish tangible evidence. This evidentiary vacuum fortifies the AO's position. 8.7 Principle of “preponderance of probability” as endorsed by the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, is apt in this context. Direct evidence of cash transactions is inherently rare, and tax authorities may draw inferences from circumstantial evidence when it converges to a compelling conclusion. Here, the digital slip, the valuation discrepancy, the appellant's partial admission of cash payments, and local market practices collectively establis…

Arit Garg, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3143/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

Gurdas Mal Arora, Kanpur vs. The A O Circle-1(2)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 69A

…resent case. The assessee did not produce books of accounts, and also did not establish genuineness of purchase, sales, stock etc with credible evidence. Reliance of Revenue on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the precedent restored at Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) is quite apt in the facts of the case. The doctrine of Human Probability famously laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC) is firmly against the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. The claims made by the assessee are; cumulatively, beyond the realm of human…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajen Kirtilal Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5438/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmil JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 68

…nd circumstances of the ease and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the decision of Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (8C) and Sumati Dayal 2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 [1995] 80 Taxmann 89(SC) [1995] 2014 ITR 801 (SC)/ (1995) 125 CTR 124(SC), rendered by the Supreme Court, where it was held that Hon'ble Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidence before it by applying the test of probabilities, the surrounding circumstances which exercise had been done by the Assessing Officer? 8. Whether on the facts arid circumstances of the…

DCIT, Delhi vs. Jmk Jewels Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 4282/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…s unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions and find no reason to accept neither party’s stand in entirety. We first of all refer 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) that any evidence filed in the course of income tax proceedings has to be examined in light of human 11 | P a g e ITA No.3609 & 4282/Del/2025 probabilities, after removing all blinkers and that mere submission of documentary evidenc…

Jmk Jewels Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 3609/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Manoj Chhitubhai Patel, Surat

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

ITA 507/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 250Section 69A

…law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the principle of "Human Probability Test" i.e. preponderance of probability which is applicable to Income Tax proceedings as laid down in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801: 80 Taxman 89 (SC) and CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540. 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above ground of appeal, raise any new ground of appeal, if necessary, either before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal on the basis of submissions to be made. 3. All the grounds raised by the reve…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Manoj Chhitubhai Patel, Surat

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

ITA 506/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 132Section 250Section 69A

Shri Rahul Sumerchand Dodal L/H Shri Sumerchand R Dodal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, however with liberty as mentioned above

ITA 2328/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 250

…s, cash trail in the accounts of the entry providers, arranged transactions and considering SRK being a bogus company, while relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801, ultimately disallowed the said claim of the assessee and resultantly added the entire amount of Rs. 40,12,236/- being sale proceeds of the shares, as un-explained income u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. The assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition/ disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, could not get any r…

Amrit Varsha Udyog Ltd, Kotdwar vs. DCIT Circle 1, Dehradun

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No.2/DDN/2025:Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Amrit Varsha Udyog Ltd., Vs DCIT, Plot No. D1, D2, D12, D13, UPSIDC Circle-1, Industrial Areas, Jashodharpur Dehradun Kotdwar, Uttarakhand-246149 Uttrakhand-2488001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCA1516H Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 ORDER Per Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member: The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the ord…

Vishwas Builders, Opera Palace vs. ACIT, Cir 2(2), Surat, Majuragate

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

ITA 373/SRT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vishwas Builders, Acit, Cir 2(2), Laskana Kholvad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Gujarat-395004. Vs. Majuragate, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aakfv 9174 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Samir Shah

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 68

…isolation on the basis of entries appearing in its books ring in its books of account. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal of account. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in of account. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in v. CIT, [1995] 214 ITR 801 214 ITR 801 the apparent state of affairs must be the apparent state of affairs must be tested against human probabilities, surrounding circumstances, human probabilities, surrounding circumstances, human probabilities, surrounding circumstances, and the conduct of parties and the conduct of parties, and the taxing authorities are entitled thorit…

Jastej Gorowara, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 277/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…hiness was not proved and that the genuineness of the transactions was doubtful. The Assessing Officer, placed reliance on the cases of CIT v. P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), held that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions. Accordingly, the unsecured loans of ₹90,00,000/- were treated as unexplained cash credits and added to the total income. The total income was assessed at ₹1,33,26,050/- and penalty proceedings under section…

Jastej Gorowara, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 276/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Nikhil Ashok Shivdikar, Parel Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20 2 4 Mumbai, Lalbaug Parel

ITA 4639/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: him.

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…