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.

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 801)

DCIT, Non Corporate Circle - 2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Jayapal Sanjay, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1737/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Jayapal Sanjay Income Tax, Non-Corporate 78/132, Dr. Radhakrishnan Circle-2(1), Chennai Salai, Mylapore, Room No. 320, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Chennai-600004. Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar (Pan: Aavps9647J) Bhavan, 121, M G Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Chennai Vide Ita No. 161/2017-18/(A)-2 Dated 27.03.2019 Passed Against The Order Of Acit, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Chennai Dated 29.12.2017 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Before Us Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 48

…decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Smt. D. Zeenath (supra) wherein similar such payments have been held to be tantamounting to diversion of sale proceeds. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that income tax proceedings are civil proceedings and the degree of proof required is to be judged by preponderance of probabilities. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) has held that the taxing authorities were not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produ…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bharath Infra Exports & Imports Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.DIT (DR)

Section 133ASection 14ASection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner of Income- Vs. M/s Bharath Infra Exports & tax, Imports Ltd., Central Circle-1(2), No.48, Landmark Hosur Road, Bengaluru. Huskur Gate, Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 027. PAN – AADCB 1793 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.DIT (DR) Date of hearing : 11.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : .08.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member…

Shri Abhishek Gupta, Indore vs. ITO-5(5), Indore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 74/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

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

…a No. 8 of the assessment-order. However, the Ld. AO was not satisfied with the submissions of assessee and relying upon following decisions favouring Revenue, the Ld. AO made twin- additions as mentioned in the beginning: (a) M/s Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) (b) Shammin Varmani, ITA No. 4906/Mum/2011 (c) Ziauddin A. Siddique ITA No. 4699 and 4700/Mum/2011 10. During first appellate proceeding, the assessee submitted a detailed reply to Ld. CIT(A) reiterating almost same submissions as made before Ld. AO but with the support of some more judicial precedents. However, the assessee did not find an…

The ITO, Ward-1(3)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Nileshkumar Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya, A.R

Section 10(38)

…nces based on preponderance of probability and circumstantial/ surrounding evidences but the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of such exempted capital gain. The AO also referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540. 4.1 The AO in addition to the above also found that price movement in the scrip of the M/s SRK Industries was very abrupt, unrealistic and without the support of any financial base which is beyond human probability. The shares were purchased in off market and dematerialized just a week ago before sale…

Sangeeta Basavraj Mangrule, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…cidents matched with that which could be expected in a case of a transaction in a penny stock, the modus operandi of the transactions in which was also listed by the AO. Accordingly, relying on the decisions by the Apex court in the case of SumatiDayalVs. CIT(214 ITR 801) and Durga Prasad More Vs. CIT(182 ITR 540), he assessed the impugned credit of Rs.12.15 lakhs as unexplained income U/s 68 of the Act. In appeal, the assessee however found favour with the CIT (A). The purchase of shares was through a contract note issued by a registered broker, duly accounted for in his books of account, and could not be doubte…

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…s Pt Ltd, M/s Landmark Suppliers Pt Ltd and M/s Kingfisher Properties Pt Ltd made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) has held genuineness could validity be tested on the ground or principle of preponderance of human possibilities which form a valid ground or parameter for determining the genuineness." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, income from house property and income from other source…

Yedla Sudhakar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 824/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Raaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…and he has to explain the source of these cash deposits in these assessment years. The ld. Senior DR relied on the two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumathi Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1995] 214 ITR 801 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC). 6. On query from the Bench, the ld.counsel for the assessee only pleaded mercy but refused to file any evidence even though Bench specifically asked him if he wants some more time, he can buy some time for the same but he stated that matter be sent back and in case evid…

Yedla Sudhakar, Chennai vs. ITO-Ncw23(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 823/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Raaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…and he has to explain the source of these cash deposits in these assessment years. The ld. Senior DR relied on the two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumathi Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1995] 214 ITR 801 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC). 6. On query from the Bench, the ld.counsel for the assessee only pleaded mercy but refused to file any evidence even though Bench specifically asked him if he wants some more time, he can buy some time for the same but he stated that matter be sent back and in case evid…

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…rtinent to mention that while dealing with the concept of burden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT VS Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reason to believe that the apparent is not real and that taxing authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the ITA Nos. 415 to 4154/M/19 & CO nos.57 to 59/M/20 Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd; A.Y. 10–11 reality and the matter has to be c…

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…rtinent to mention that while dealing with the concept of burden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT VS Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reason to believe that the apparent is not real and that taxing authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the ITA Nos. 415 to 4154/M/19 & CO nos.57 to 59/M/20 Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd; A.Y. 10–11 reality and the matter has to be c…

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4152/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…rtinent to mention that while dealing with the concept of burden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT VS Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reason to believe that the apparent is not real and that taxing authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the ITA Nos. 415 to 4154/M/19 & CO nos.57 to 59/M/20 Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd; A.Y. 10–11 reality and the matter has to be c…

Ahcl Pel, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed while Ground No

ITA 2011/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 801BSection 80I

…, inter alia, as the construction was not ITA. No. 1859 & 2011/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 as per municipal plan, and the flats had area of more than 1000 Sq Ft. Referring to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT: 214 ITR 801 SC, he submitted that in the facts of the present case the apparent cannot be considered as real and the Assessing Officer was justified in denying deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. 4.2. Responding to the above, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the issue has been decided in the favour of the Assess…

Dy CIT, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ahcl Pel, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed while Ground No

ITA 1859/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 801BSection 80I

…, inter alia, as the construction was not ITA. No. 1859 & 2011/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 as per municipal plan, and the flats had area of more than 1000 Sq Ft. Referring to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT: 214 ITR 801 SC, he submitted that in the facts of the present case the apparent cannot be considered as real and the Assessing Officer was justified in denying deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. 4.2. Responding to the above, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the issue has been decided in the favour of the Assess…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune vs. Rakesh Motilal Sharma, Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2123/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2123 & 2124/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha & Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 68

…term capital gains of Rs.1,64,86,847/- and Rs.5,03,99,669/- ; assessment year wise, respectively. It’s case is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the assessment findings to this effect. Learned CIT-DR quotes Sumati Dayal V/s. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT V/s Durga Prasad More (1971) ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT V/s & NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) that evidence(s) filed in income-tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities after removing all blinkers. And that an assessee cannot be held to have discharged its onus of proving genuineness of his a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune vs. Rakesh Motilal Sharma, Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2124/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2123 & 2124/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag Jha & Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 68

…term capital gains of Rs.1,64,86,847/- and Rs.5,03,99,669/- ; assessment year wise, respectively. It’s case is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the assessment findings to this effect. Learned CIT-DR quotes Sumati Dayal V/s. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT V/s Durga Prasad More (1971) ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT V/s & NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) that evidence(s) filed in income-tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities after removing all blinkers. And that an assessee cannot be held to have discharged its onus of proving genuineness of his a…

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Smb Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta And Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

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

…the amount was shown as unsecured loans. He, thereafter by applying the ratio of decisions rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, vs., Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs., Commissioner of Income Tax [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) held Rs.2,57,34,453/- earned by the assessee as undisclosed income and made its addition. 4.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has given a finding that assessee is a registered NBFC, obtained the registration fro…

Denesh Kumar Sachdeva (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-56(1), New Delhi

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 9562/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 10(38)

…erations wherein the merger method adopted by the operators/brokers for providing bogus LTCG has been adopted. 8. Further placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT versus Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 1TR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) and various other judicial pronouncements, A.O. came to the conclusion that the transactions showing LTCG exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by the assessee are sham various share brokers prove. Accordingly AO held that it is a clear-cut case of bogus long-term capital gain obtained through brokers and the assessee has used coloura…

Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-56(1), New Delhi

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 9561/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 10(38)

…erations wherein the merger method adopted by the operators/brokers for providing bogus LTCG has been adopted. 8. Further placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT versus Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 1TR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) and various other judicial pronouncements, A.O. came to the conclusion that the transactions showing LTCG exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by the assessee are sham various share brokers prove. Accordingly AO held that it is a clear-cut case of bogus long-term capital gain obtained through brokers and the assessee has used coloura…

Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-56(1), New Delhi

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 9560/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 10(38)

…erations wherein the merger method adopted by the operators/brokers for providing bogus LTCG has been adopted. 8. Further placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT versus Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 1TR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) and various other judicial pronouncements, A.O. came to the conclusion that the transactions showing LTCG exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by the assessee are sham various share brokers prove. Accordingly AO held that it is a clear-cut case of bogus long-term capital gain obtained through brokers and the assessee has used coloura…

Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 49, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Raigad Darshan (Appeals)–49 Oppsite Indian Oil Company, 605, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagcs5014B Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income-tax Raigad Darshan (Appeals)–49 Oppsite Indian Oil Company, 605, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAGCS5014B Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR Revenue by : Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR Date of hearing: 25.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : .07.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee namely Shiv Shakti Enclaves Pvt Ltd…

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

What is Sumati Dayal v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

DCIT, Non Corporate Circle - 2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Jayapal Sanjay, Chennai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bharath Infra Exports & Imports Limited, Bengaluru

Shri Abhishek Gupta, Indore vs. ITO-5(5), Indore

The ITO, Ward-1(3)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Nileshkumar Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

Sangeeta Basavraj Mangrule, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

Yedla Sudhakar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw2(3), Chennai

Yedla Sudhakar, Chennai vs. ITO-Ncw23(3), Chennai

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

Ahcl Pel, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

Dy CIT, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ahcl Pel, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune vs. Rakesh Motilal Sharma, Pune

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune vs. Rakesh Motilal Sharma, Pune

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Smb Securities Ltd., New Delhi

Denesh Kumar Sachdeva (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-56(1), New Delhi

Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-56(1), New Delhi

Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-56(1), New Delhi

Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 49, Mumbai