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 367,636 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 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price riggingcolourable devicepreponderance of probabilitybogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)entry operatoraddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionaccommodation entryshare application money

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Ravindra Purushottam Birole(HUF), Pune vs. ITO Ward-5(5), Pune

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

ITA 2014/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2013 & 2014/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010- 11 &2011-12 Ravindra Purushottam The Income Tax Officer, Birole(Huf), Vs Ward-5(5), Pune. 2055, Sadashiv Peth, Anant Residency, 1St Floor, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aadhb 8563 J Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune, Dated 30.10.2019For The Ay 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 147Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

…evidence, the claim of the assessee is unbelievable. Also, the assessee had claimed turnover more than 3 crores, as per Income Tax Act, the books needs to be audited above Rs.60 lacs turnover. No such audit report filed. Hon’ble SC in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 have settled the law long back that any evidence filed in Income tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities. However, in this case there are no documentary evidences filed other than claiming trading activity without any supportive documents. The assessee failed to prove the trading a…

Ravindra Purushottam Birole(HUF), Pune vs. ITO Ward-5(5), Pune

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

ITA 2013/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2013 & 2014/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010- 11 &2011-12 Ravindra Purushottam The Income Tax Officer, Birole(Huf), Vs Ward-5(5), Pune. 2055, Sadashiv Peth, Anant Residency, 1St Floor, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aadhb 8563 J Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune, Dated 30.10.2019For The Ay 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 147Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

…evidence, the claim of the assessee is unbelievable. Also, the assessee had claimed turnover more than 3 crores, as per Income Tax Act, the books needs to be audited above Rs.60 lacs turnover. No such audit report filed. Hon’ble SC in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 have settled the law long back that any evidence filed in Income tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities. However, in this case there are no documentary evidences filed other than claiming trading activity without any supportive documents. The assessee failed to prove the trading a…

Vipul Mansukhbhai Bhimani, Nizampura vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1524/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vipul Mansukhbhai Bhimani, Income Tax Officer, 29/D, Suvernarekha Society, Vs Ward 1(3)(3), Nr. Mehsana Nagar Society, Vadodara Nizampura, Gujarat-390002 Pan : Acfpb 6160 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Ms. M.M. Garg, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.M. Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

…case, it is seen that the appellant has failed to discharge her burden of proof. 10.4 I further find that the above ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated and applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801). It is essential for the revenue to look into the real nature of transaction and what happens in the real word and contextualize the same to such transactions in the real market situation. Further, in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. [(1985) 154.ITR 148 (SC)],the Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed as under; "Tax planning may be legitimate provid…

Dy. CIT -34(1), Mumbai vs. Amit Burakia, Mumbai

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

ITA 1590/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Cit-34(1), Amit Burakia, Kautilaya Bhavan, 8Th Floor, 1203-1204, Gardenia, B-Wing, Room No. 802, Bkc, Vs. Vasant Valley, Film City Road, Mumbai-400051. Malad (East), Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Abupa 6908 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat, Ar Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 10(38)Section 250(4)

…ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) & Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC)? 82 ITR 540 (SC) & Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC)? 82 ITR 540 (SC) & Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC)? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was Ld.CIT(A) was justified deleting t…

Ss Oral Hygiene Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 645/HYD/2011[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(g)Section 92C

…ement for technical assistance is a self serving document and, hence rejected, Reliance is placed on the decisions of Supreme Assessment Year: 2005-06 Page 4 of 7 Court in the case of CIT Vs Durga Prasa More (82 ITR 540) and in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs.CIT(214 ITR 801). In view of the above, the arm's length price for technical assistance from CP,USA requires re-computation. In view of the nominal services received by assessee and the fact that the said services are covered by Royalty agreement the arm's length price for technical assistance fee claim is excessive and hence recomputed at nil. Accordingly, the…

M/S. Ss Oral Hygiene Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Idcit, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 105/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(g)Section 92C

…es received, it is held that the agreement for technical assistance is a self serving document and, hence rejected, Reliance is placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Durga Prasa More (82 ITR 540) and in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs.CIT(214 ITR 801). In view of the above, the arm's length price for technical assistance from CP,USA requires re- computation. In view of the nominal services received by assessee and the fact that the said services are covered by Royalty agreement the arm's length price for technical assistance fee claim is excessive and hence recomputed at nil. Accordingly, the…

Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Mangal Jewels P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1408/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 133ASection 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 1408/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Shree Mangal Jewels DCIT, CC-1(1) 903, 9th Floor Private Limited Pratishtha Bhavan Shop No. 201, 2nd M.K. Road Floor, Chintamani Old CGO Bldg Annexe Arcade, Dhanji Street Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 003. PAN : AAOCS8954B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.S. Khandelwal Department by Shri Chetan M. Kacha Date of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11.10.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the orde…

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 1380/MUM/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…same day and passed on the same to the assessee also on the same day on 30.03.2015, it casts doubts that the entire transactions have been engineered to avoid tax and after citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 1995 214 ITR 801 (SC) and also in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the assessee has filed his return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.16,96,22,840/-. The AO noted that the asses…

Mehul Jadavji Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee regarding of partly allowed

ITA 191/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.191/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1380/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mehul Jadavji Shah बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) 1301, 13Th Floor, Peninsula Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Business Park, Tower-B Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1654H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…same day and passed on the same to the assessee also on the same day on 30.03.2015, it casts doubts that the entire transactions have been engineered to avoid tax and after citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 1995 214 ITR 801 (SC) and also in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the assessee has filed his return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.16,96,22,840/-. The AO noted that the asses…

Shradha Estate Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1626/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrikuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalshradha Estate Pvt. Ltd., 3, New Bake Bihari Building, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Opp. Khar Tel Ex, Mumbai-40052. Pan: Aabcs4961J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-5(3)(2), Room No. 583, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIKULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shradha Estate Pvt. Ltd., 3, New Bake Bihari Building, 24th Road, Khar (West), Opp. Khar TEL EX, Mumbai-40052. PAN: AABCS4961J ...... Appellant Vs. ITO-5(3)(2), Room No. 583, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 05/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 03/10/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appe…

The Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Champion Agro Ltd

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 78/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 504/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rjt/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CITD.R
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 504/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009 And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 78/Rjt/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 A.C.I.T., Champion Agro Limited, Circle-1, Vs. Formerly Known as Magnetic Rajkot. Industries Ltd., 8B National Highway, Veraval (Shapar), Rajkot. PAN: AABCM4351Q Revenue by : Shri Aarsi Prasad, CITD.R Assessee by : Written Submission सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05/07/2022 घोषणा…

The ACIT, Circle-1, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Champion Agro Ltd., Formerly Known As Magnetic Inds. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 504/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 504/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rjt/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CITD.R
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 504/Rjt/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2008-2009 And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 78/Rjt/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 A.C.I.T., Champion Agro Limited, Circle-1, Vs. Formerly Known as Magnetic Rajkot. Industries Ltd., 8B National Highway, Veraval (Shapar), Rajkot. PAN: AABCM4351Q Revenue by : Shri Aarsi Prasad, CITD.R Assessee by : Written Submission सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05/07/2022 घोषणा…

DCIT CC-5(2) Central Range-5, Mumbai vs. Jayanand Religious Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1727/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Jayananad Religious Trust Dcit Cc-5(2) Shop No. 1, 148, Rasik Kunj, Central Range-5, Room No. 1908, Air India Bldg, Jain Society, Sion (W), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 022 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaatj8901F Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Kapadia, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Nishant Somaiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kapadia, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Nishant Somaiya, DR
Section 115BSection 12Section 131Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Jayananad Religious Trust DCIT Cc-5(2) Shop No. 1, 148, Rasik Kunj, Central Range-5, Room No. 1908, Air India Bldg, Jain Society, Sion (W), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 022 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAATJ8901F Assessee by : Sh. Sanjay Kapadia, AR Revenue by : Sh. Nishant Somaiya, DR Date of hearing: 22.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – Central Circle 5 (2),…

Ashish Manoj Bhatia, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Cirlce-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2015-16 Ashish Manoj Bhatia Dcit, Cir.4(2) 10, Kameshwardev Society Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Kishan Bungalows Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ahspb 1199 E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thawani
Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 250(6)

…the guilt, it has been observed by the than Apex Court that the Courts will not be obvious to the notorious fact of life...." ; The contention of the AO on cross examination is accepted in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments recorded at 82 ITR 540 (SC), 214 ITR 801 (SC) & 191 ITR 667 (SC) as all material facts were clearly disclosed to the appellant. In such circumstances, the ratio laid down by case law if accepted in this peculiar case, becomes far from the destined judicial path stipulated therein. The appellant was not able to prove the ownership of the shares as same is alleged to have happened throug…

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sunil Hingorani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6608/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, Circle-16(1) Vs. Shri Sunil Hingorani Room No.439, 4th Floor 104, Nibhana, Pali Hill Aayakar Bhavan Bandra (W) M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAAPH1482P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue by Shri Amit Pratap Singh Date of Hearing 28/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.6608/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2013-14 arises out of the order by the ld. Commis…

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7090/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…o the transactions. It appears that the retraction statement was made purely to avoid clutches of law which had caught up with him/her and laid bare his/her nefarious activities. 7.24. The Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, 806, 808-809 (SC), has observed that apparent must be considered real, until it is shown that there are reasons to that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look 14 Appeals 19 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and matter has to be considered…

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7089/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…o the transactions. It appears that the retraction statement was made purely to avoid clutches of law which had caught up with him/her and laid bare his/her nefarious activities. 7.24. The Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, 806, 808-809 (SC), has observed that apparent must be considered real, until it is shown that there are reasons to that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look 14 Appeals 19 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and matter has to be considered…

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-61(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7088/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…o the transactions. It appears that the retraction statement was made purely to avoid clutches of law which had caught up with him/her and laid bare his/her nefarious activities. 7.24. The Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, 806, 808-809 (SC), has observed that apparent must be considered real, until it is shown that there are reasons to that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look 14 Appeals 19 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and matter has to be considered…

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6779/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…o the transactions. It appears that the retraction statement was made purely to avoid clutches of law which had caught up with him/her and laid bare his/her nefarious activities. 7.24. The Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, 806, 808-809 (SC), has observed that apparent must be considered real, until it is shown that there are reasons to that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look 14 Appeals 19 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and matter has to be considered…

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6778/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…o the transactions. It appears that the retraction statement was made purely to avoid clutches of law which had caught up with him/her and laid bare his/her nefarious activities. 7.24. The Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, 806, 808-809 (SC), has observed that apparent must be considered real, until it is shown that there are reasons to that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look 14 Appeals 19 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and matter has to be considered…