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

DCIT C.C. 3(4) Central .RG, Mumbai vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit,Cc-3(4) Vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar Room No. 1915, Air India D-1214, Hillside Building Building, Nariman Point, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacpt0654P Revenue .. Assessee

For Appellant: Harsh Bhuta &For Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 698Section 69B

…ssion Court order dated 12.12.2015, reporting of investment made in books of account and return of income filed by the assessee, etc. The aforesaid specific facts and evidences also distinguish the case of assessee from the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 applied by the A.O without disproving the specific supporting evidences existed in the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan N. Boos. Vs. ACIT, Circle (339 ITR 192) held that addition made by the A.O merely on the basis of retracted statement u/s 132(4) could not be sustained in the absence of any evidence…

Siddharth Narang, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Moradabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6348/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 Sidharth Narang Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sidharth Narang, Vs Income-tax Officer, C/o Kansal Kapoor, Ward 2(2), Moradabad 7 Co. Kothiwal Nagar, Station Road, Moradabad-244001 PAN- ASFPN4682E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash Sr. DR Date of hearing 11.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 19.05.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Moradabad, dated 14.05.2019, p…

Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal (HUF), Moradabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6346/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal (Huf), Vs Ito, C/O-Kansal Kapoor & Co., Ward-2(2), Kothiwal Nagar, Station Road, Moradabad. Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Pan-Aakhs2133Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.05.2022

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

…n conduct and preponderance of probabilities. 3.12. Also, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Durga Prasad Mor and Sumati Dayal that the test of human probabilities has also to be applied by the authorities below. In the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801, it was held that during the year 1970-71 (pertaining to the assessment year 1971-72) between April 6, 1970, and March 20, 1971, the appellant claims to have won in horse race a total amount of Rs.3.11,831/- on 13 occasions out of which ten winnings were from jackpots and three were from treble events. Similarly in the year 1971- 72, the appellan…

S.Venkatrama Chettiar, Dharapuram vs. PCIT, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 150/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.R.N.Siddappaji, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e had failed in its duty of discharging the onus of proof to establish that all the purchases were genuine. The Apex Court while dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, in the case of CIT vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 840 and Sumati Dayal Vs.CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real and that Taxing Authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7214/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 7214, 7212 & 7213/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) DCIT – 3(2)(2) v. M/s. Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 674, 6th Floor 254B, 4th Floor, Nirlon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai - 400030 PAN: AAACP2529C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No. 746/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2009-10) ACIT – 3(2)(2) v. M/s. Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 608 67, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7213/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7212/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 187/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R

Section 40ASection 68

…not sufficient. As such the same should also be proven by circumstantial surrounding evidences as held by the Hon’ble supreme A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 17 court in case of Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and in case of Smt. Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801. 28.3 The last stage comes to verify the creditworthiness of the parties. The term creditworthiness as per Black Law Dictionary refers as: "creditworthy, adj. (1924) (Of a borrower) financially sound enough that a lender will extend credit in the belief default is unlikely; fiscally healthy- creditworthiness.” 28.4 Similarly in The New Lexicon W…

Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2557/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R

Section 40ASection 68

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1447/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R

Section 40ASection 68

Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1320/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R

Section 40ASection 68

Mangal Annasaheb Jadhav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmednagar

In the result, Ground No.1 and 2 are dismissed and Ground

ITA 665/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mangal A. Jadhav, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, M/S.Shah Khandelwal Jain & Vs Ahmednagar. Associates, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune - 411001. Pan: Ahypj 9285 D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune Dated 09.12.2016For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Fit Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) It Be Held That Addition Of Rs. 10,57,073/- Made By The Ao, Doubting The Opening Cash Balance Which Is Further Deposited Into Bank & Upheld By Cit(A), Is Merely On- Guesswork & Conjectures & Is Improper, Unjustified, Incorrect & Contrary To Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. No Such Addition Is Warranted In The Case Of The Appellant. The Addition Made By The Ao & Upheld By Cit (A) Be Deleted. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect. 2. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) It Be Held That Addition Of Rs. 60,00,000/- Made By Theao, Doubting The Advances Against Booking Of Flats Received In Cash In Which Were Further Deposited Into Bank & Upheld By Cit(A), Is Merely On Guesswork & Conjectures & Is Improper, Unjustified, Incorrect & Contrary To Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing

…of their past saving which kept at their home. This is also unbelievable. 8.2 In the absence of evidence, such behaviour can only be tested by the test of the human probabilities as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (sc). If the test of human probabilities is applied to such behaviour, the conclusion would be that no person in right mind would keep substantial amount of savings in house. Moreover, a person from said income group, to purchase the flat costing round about Rs.20,00,000/-, only for the purpose of investment is not acceptable and it is beyond the…

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2978/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra, Sr. AR

Section 143Section 147Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2978/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(3)(2), Mumbai v/s Venu Raman Kumar Flat no.2, Hermes House–III ……………. Respondent Worli Sea Face, Mumbai 400 025 PAN – ABAPK9211E Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri S.N. Kabra, Sr. AR Date of Hearing – 25.04.2022 Date of Order – 05/05/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challengin…

Potent Foods Private Limted, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 104/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Shyam SunderFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.104/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2016-2017 M/s. Potent Foods Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., FF-9, Vishnu Ward – 2 (1), FBD Place, Near Neelam vs. C.R. Building, Flyover, Sector 20-B, Faridabad. Faridabad. Haryana. PIN – 121 001 Haryana – 122 001. PAN AAGCP6222N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Rajiv Saxena, Shri Sumangla Saxena & For Assessee : Shri Shyam Sunder Advocates For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 ORDER This appeal filed by th…

Reshmi Sudhakaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 353/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

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

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

…26. Therefore, in view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case and considering the finding arrived at by the AO, I do hold that the impugned transaction was sham transaction. The ratio of the decisions in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801; Durga Prasad More vs. CIT, 182 ITR 540 and CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007), 161 Taxman 169, further strengthens the conclusion that the entire series of transaction was a colourable device to account for the unaccounted money in the form of Long Term Capital Gain claimed as exempt u/s 10 (38) of the Act. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.498/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S Real Procon Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Vs. Saneshwar Complex, Rajkot. Opp. Balalji Hall, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.D.R

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 68

…out through banking channel is not sufficient. As such the same should also be proven by circumstantial surrounding evidences as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and in case of Smt. Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801. 8.9 The last stage comes to verify the creditworthiness of the parties. The term creditworthiness as per Black Law Dictionary refers as: "creditworthy, adj. (1924) (Of a borrower) financially sound enough that a lender will extend credit in the belief default is unlikely; fiscally healthy-creditworthiness.” 8.10 Similarly in The New Lexicon Webs…

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…iew was further held in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau.) wherein it was held that it cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. The Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) held that if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof of any sum credited in the books of accounts are not satisfactory, then the same is chargeable to tax as income of the assessee. The proviso to section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 specifies as under: "that where the assessee is a company (not being a company i…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…se laws:- i) Rajabahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh V/s. CIT (77 ITR 53 (SC) ii) Sunil Siddharthbhai V/s. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) iii) CIT V/s.Durgaprasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) iv) Juggilal Kamalapat V/s CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC) (v) Sumati Dayal V/s CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) And he treated the non compete fees as revenue receipt and added to the income of the assessee. Further, he observed that assessee has mainly relied upon the ratios in the case of Oberoi Hotels Co (I) Ltd 236 ITR 903 (SC) & Kettlewell Bullen & Co Ltd vs CIT 53 ITR 261 (SC) and further observed that the facts in those cases are distinguishabl…

Bini Builders P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1321/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1321/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Central Circle-7(3) 203-204, Raigad Darshan, Jp Room No.655, Aayakar Vs. Road, Andheri West, Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb3447R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.05.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceeding Under Section 147. A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & Creating Reason To Believe For Escaped Assessment U/S. 147 As There Was No Failure On Part Of Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly Fact.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1321/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. DCIT Central Circle-7(3) 203-204, Raigad Darshan, JP Room No.655, Aayakar Vs. Road, Andheri West, Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCB3447R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date o…

The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Capaxo Logistics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1264/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1264/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.190/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 I.T.O., M/S. Capaxo Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 302, Third Floor, Ahmedabad. 3Rd Eye, C.G.Cross Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R

Section 68

…out through banking channel is not sufficient. As such the same should also be proven by circumstantial surrounding evidences as held by the Hon’ble supreme court in case of Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and in case of Smt. Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801. 7.3 The last stage comes to verify the creditworthiness of the parties. The term creditworthiness as per Black Law Dictionary refers as: "creditworthy, adj. (1924) (Of a borrower) financially sound enough that a lender will extend credit in the belief default is unlikely; fiscally healthy-creditworthiness.” 7.4 Similarly in The New Lexicon Webs…