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 367,518 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

Pawan Meena, Plot No.91 vs. ITO, WD2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/JPR/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

…eness of the transactions entered into the books of account of the assessees. The "Human Probability Tests were laid down for the first time in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and followed in the case of Sumati Dayal vs.CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). The Human Probability test was also applied in the following cases: 1. A. Rajendran &Ors, vs. ACIT (2006) 204 CTR (Mad) 9 2 Hacienda Farms (P) LTD. vs. CIT (2011) 239 CTR (Del) 212 3. Major Metals Ltd. vs. UOIAND ORS (2012) 251 CTR (Bom) 385 4. Pradip Kumar Loyalka vs. ITO (1997) 59 TTJ (Pat)(TM) 655 5. ACIT vs. Sampat Raj Ranka (2001) 73 T…

Ram Gopal, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 572/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: C.A MrudulathaFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d it was proved beyond doubt that these concerns are engaged in bill shopping. The Assessing Officer therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (S.C) and Sumati Dayal vs.CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (S.C) made addition of Rs.25,63,834/- being bogus purchases made by the assessee Page 4 of 15 ITA Nos 514 571 and 572 of 2022 Ram Gopal Hyderabad from the three entities namely AVI Exports, Sun Diam and Mouli Mani Impex Pvt. Ltd. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of NK Indus…

Ram Gopal, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 571/HYD/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: C.A MrudulathaFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ram Gopal, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 514/HYD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: C.A MrudulathaFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…is always not possible to have clinching evidence to establish such surreptitious activities, the A.O relied on the principles of the preponderance of human probability as was emphasised by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). As regards the retraction of Shri Kirit kumar Dharshibhai Suba of his averments that were earlier made in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, dated 11.01.2018 and 12.01.2018, wherein he had so retracted by filing an “affidavit‟, dated 03.04.2018, and had stated that as his statement in the course of the survey proceedings was recorde…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

Vaibhav Dipak Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 964/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vaibhav Dipak Shah Dy. Cit, Central Circle-2(3) 9 & 10, Dadarkar Building, Mumbai Vs. 5/7 V.P. Road, C. P. Tank, Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aagps 2674 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Om Kandalkar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80D

…the Act where the assessee is said to have admitted as being beneficiary of accommodation entries. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Durgaprasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and held that apparent was not real in assessee’s case where the register was itself considered to be bogus. The ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the retraction statement of the assessee vide Affidavit dated 22.03.2013 and thereby upheld the addition made by the A.O. 10. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the as…

Karishma Ajay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalekarishma Ajay Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward – 21(2)(1) 218A/219, Shah Nahar Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Bk M.K.Road, Kher Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. : Agapa3857D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singhanand.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghAnand.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Karishma Ajay Agarwal Vs. ITO, Ward – 21(2)(1) 218A/219, Shah Nahar Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, BK M.K.Road, Kher Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 PAN/GIR No. : AGAPA3857D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.AR Respondent by : Shri Tejinder Pal SinghAnand.DR Date of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order o…

Jatin Garg & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(5), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5652/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2)Section 68

…case of Rajkumar B Aggarwal Vs DCIT ITA 1648 and 1649IPune 2015 order dated 04.1.2019 Hon'ble ITAT, Banglore in the case ofSmt M K Rajeshwari Rajkumar B Aggarwal Vs ITO 99 Taxmann.com 339 order dated 12.10.2018. Hon'ble Supremet Court in Sumati Dayal Vs CIT [214 ITR 801 Hon'ble Supremet Court in Mcdowell & Co. Ltd [1985) 154 ITR 148[SC]. Since the shares were purchased from off market and in physical form, therefore, not in conformity with SEBI Guidelines and the payments for purchase was also made in cash and the assessee was not a regular investor in shares, the AO rightly rejected the claim of exempt long ter…

Aruna Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5338/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 251Section 254Section 2BSection 54BSection 56

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 5338/Del/2017: Asstt. Year:2010-11 Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, Vs. ACIT, 39, Gadai Pul, Mehrauli, Central Circle-26, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEPC0681R Assessee by : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv Revenue by : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 22.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-31, New Delhi da…

Shri. Sunil Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 337/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

…ing Tribunal orders to decide the issue against the assessee. [The tribunal orders had followed the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the 10 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan cases of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)]: - i) Rajkumar B. Agarwal vs. DCIT - ITA Nos. 1643 to 1652/PUN/2014 (order dated 04.01.2019) ii) Pankaj Agarwal & Sons & Ors vs. ITO – ITA Nos. 1413 to 1420/CHNY/2018 (order dated 06.12.2018) iii) Smt M.K. Rajeshwari vs. ITO (2018) 99 taxmann.com 339 (Bang- Tirbe) 12. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee raised this issue befor…

Smt.Suganthi Shree Anbumani, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 17(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and the Stay Application of the assessee is also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 184/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Chny/2021 & "े यािचका सं./S.A No.15/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Suganthi Shree Anbumani, The Income Tax Officer, No.201, Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar Qtrs, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-17(5), Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar, Sembium, Chennai. Chennai – 600 011. [Pan: Algpa-5422-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar. V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 : 24.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal & Stay Application By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69

…axing 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. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, 806, 808-09 (SC) held that certain amounts were credited in the capital account of the assessee in her books of account for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee offered her explanation about the said receipts being her winnings from races. The dispute was whether the receipts were really the winnings of the assessee from the…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - XII vs. Sanjeev Jain

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

ITA/47/2012HC Calcutta20 Feb 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. … For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 16, 2011 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No.887/Kol/2010 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. The Appeal Was Admitted On 4Th April, 2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Has Arrived At A Conclusion Without Considering Relevant Materials That Resulted The Findings Of The Learned Tribunal Unreasonable & Perverse In Law ?

Section 260A

…2 ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion by applying wrongly the principle of law laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal –vs- CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 (SC) ? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the burden of proof lies on the revenue and not on the assessee ? We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. The short issue which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether th…

Tribhuvan Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(1), Kolkata

ITA 783/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

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

…f the said sources of fund introduced in the nature of share capital. Ld. AO, after considering the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments including that of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540, Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 and various other judgments mentioned in the assessment order, confirmed the addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 25.04 Cr observing as follows: “Thus, respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Courts and various other courts as discussed above and also considering the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that this is…

Income Tax Officer -32(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kinjal Enterprises, Mumb

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 60/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 60/Mum/2022 Ita Nos. 2464/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Shashank Mehta

Section 132Section 143(2)

…P a g e | 1 2 Appeals ITO-32(2)(1) Vs. M/s Kinjal Enterprises IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 60/Mum/2022 ITA Nos. 2464/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) ITO-32(2)(1) Vs. M/s Kinjal Enterprises Room No. 704, 7 th Floor, Tulsi Tower, T.P.S. III, Kautilya Bhavan, 51st Road, Borivali (West) C-41 to C-43, G Block, Mumbai – 400 092 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AALFK1595P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Soumendu Kumar Dash Respondent by :…

ITO 32(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kinjal Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2464/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 60/Mum/2022 Ita Nos. 2464/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Shashank Mehta

Section 132Section 143(2)

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. R K Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Seth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli– CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.55/SRT/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sapnesh R Seth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Ashok B. Ko…

Naveen Kumar Sriram, Medak vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 634/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

…served that additions U/S 69A can be made only when the assessee offers no explanation or the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory. 6 Naveenkumar Sriram Attention is drawn to the judgement given by the Apex Court in `Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (214 ITR 801 / 80 Taxman 89) (1995) where it was held that that while considering the explanation of the assessee, the AO cannot act unreasonably, and his satisfaction that a particular transaction is not genuine must be based on relevant factors and on a just and reasonable inquiry. The ratio of this judgment delivered in the context of Sec 68 shall be appli…

Mr. Hanumantrao Jagannath Gharge, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2440/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Hanumantrao Dy. Commissioner of Jagannath Gharge, Income Tax, Trimurti Apartment, Circle 14(1)(1), Vs. 17/15, Sector 15, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerul (East), M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai – 400 706 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AFEPG5479G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30 . 11 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19 . 01 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: At the very outset, the ap…