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 Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Parth Vinod Gadhiya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in respect of A

ITA 2248/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam, CIT D.R

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)

…ITA Nos.2248-49/Mum/2021 A.Y.2014-15 & 2016-17 ITA No.1705, 1529,1531/Mum/2021 A.Y.2014-15 to 2016-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2248/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Vs. Shri Parth Vinod Gadhiya DCIT-CC-5(3), MUMBAI 19th Floor, Air India Building, 701, Millenium Apartment, Nariman Point, Lallubhai Park Extension Road, Mumbai 400021. Vileparle (W), Mumbai 400056 PAN : AXGPG9697Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA Nos. 1705/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Shri Parth Vinod…

Atish Singla, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-43(7), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1185/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

…not furnished the nature of such payment with documentary evidence. Keeping in view the above facts, the circumstantial evidences do not support the contention of the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in several cases such as Sumati Dayal [1995] 214 ITR 801(SC) that while deciding any issue surrounding circumstance/evidence and test of human probabilities should also be looked into. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has made huge cash deposits during the demonetization period, which is found not a regular feature in earlier period as well as subsequent period in the in…

ACIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. Dr. Shiv Gautam, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 85/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 85/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2017-18 A.C.I.T., Cuke Dr. Shiv Gautam, Central Circle-1, Vs. 1, Gokul, Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 4893 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 28/05/2021 For The A.Y. 2017-18 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.17.30 Lakhs Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Made Surrender Of This Amount In His Statement Recorded As Per Law & Had Attributed It To Hitherto Undisclosed Receipts. 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,77,34,000/-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(4)

…the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as the buyer of the land denied to pay any on-money in land transaction to his wife. The ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon’ble SC in the case of Sumati Dayal V CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) & CIT V. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC). 4. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and has committed a grace error of law in not giving notice to the A.O. as contemplated within the meaning of provisions of Sections 250(1) of 4 ITA 85/JP/2021_ ACIT Vs Dr. Shiv Gautam the IT Act, 1961. In this connection, orde…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…366ITR 110 (Delhi) 9. ONASSIS AXLES PRIVATE LIMITED 364 ITR 53 (Delhi) 10. FOCUS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 111 DTR 0012 (Del) 11. RathiFinlease Ltd 215 CTR 429 MP 12. Kundan Investment Ltd 263 ITR 626 (Cat) 13. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd 232 ITR 820 (Cat) 14. SumatiDayai 214 ITR 801 (SC) 15. Power Drugs Ltd. 245 CTR 623 P & H 16. Nova Promoters &Finiease (P) Ltd 342 ITR 169 (Del.) 17. AZEEM INVESTMENT PVT LTD 252 CTR 0217 Del.) 18. MAJOR METALS LTD 359 ITR 0450 (Bom) 19. INDEPENDENT MEDIA PVT. LTD. 25 taxmann.com 276 (Delhi) 20. NEELKANTHISPAT UDHYOG PVT LTD 81 DTR 0214 21. Frostair P. Ltd 92 DTR 393 (Del). 22. Rajani Hotels…

M/S Govindram & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is also dismissed

ITA 1475/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35A

…al. Therefore, the courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence ITA No.1474&1475/Mum/2019 M/s Govindrum & Co; AYs 09-10& 10-11 before them by applying the test of human probabilities". Similarly, in a later decision in the case of SumatiDayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected theory that it is for alleger to prove that the apparent and not real, and observed that, "This, in our opinion, is a superficial approach to the problem. The matter has to be considered in the light of human probabilities………………………………..Similarly the observation ………………..that if it is alleged that th…

M/S Govindram & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is also dismissed

ITA 1474/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35A

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Shri Yogeshkumar Gupta, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 416/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 416/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2006-2007 D.C.I.T., Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, Circle-4, Vs. 19, Samrpan Bunglow, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380051. Pan: Acqpg9641R

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)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. A.Y. 2006-07 8 10.3 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.” 10.4 Similarly in Th…

Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 242/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Y.Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.242/HYD/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Asst.Commissioner of HYDERABAD Vs Income Tax, [PAN: ABLPA4518K] Circle-2(2), HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Y.Ratnakar, AR For Revenue : Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 17-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23-03-2022 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee appeal for AY.2010-11 arises from the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad…

Turbomachinery Engineering Industries Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 939/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Patil, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 194C

…ed accommodation entry amount without having proved the impugned sub-contracts to have been awarded to the payee herein. We thus quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1972) [82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) [214 ITR 801] (SC) tha the evidence filed in income tax proceedings has to be appreciated by removing all blinkers in light of human probabilities. + 13-: ITA No. 939/Hyd/2016 Coupled with this, it is already an instance of admitted additions as discussed in the CIT(A)’s order. We therefore affirm the learned lower authorities’ action under challenge.…

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…share transactions. (ii) Accordingly, the whole transaction was executed through colourable device with a view to evade taxes.” 10 Shri Deepak Valji Karia 5. Assessing Officer relied on the following case law to make the additions: - (i) SumatiDayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC). (ii) Durga Prasad More Vs. CIT (82 ITR 540) (SC). (iii) McDowell & Co. Ltd., Vs. CTO (154 ITR 148) (SC). (iv) CIT vs. P. Mohankala & Others (291 ITR 278 (SC). (v) Shamin M. Bharvani (1TA No.4906/Mum/2011) of Hon'ble ITAT, 'E' Bench, Mumbai. (vi) Hersh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005 of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi. 6. Agg…

DCIT, 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganpat Singhvi, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 707/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…ithin the ambit of this provision of law.” 6 8. Thereafter, AO referred to case laws from Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Nova Promoters and Finlease P.Ltd. 342 ITR 169 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) and CIT vs Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 and concluded as under:- In view of the above, the peak amount as appearing in the Base Note of the assessee's HSBC account in AY 2007-08 being USD 3,00,495 in Jan, 2007 which translates to Rs. 1,32,72,864/- (@ Rs. 44.17 per USD being the exchange rate in Jan, 2007 as per RBI) is hereby added to…

M/S. Kasturi Rashi Developers, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1961/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…d as real, but, if there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real, as is the case under consideration as well, then the apparent should be ignored to unearth the harsh reality. 19. Similar view has been canvassed in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). The question for consideration in that case was whether the assessee purchased winning tickets after the event. It was observed that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden 2…

Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR

Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ch in case of Sonal Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT – [ITA No. 331/AHD/2017].” 7. On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue submitted before us that it is well settled principal of law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT, (214 ITR 801) that the true nature of transactions have to be ascertained in the light of the Surroundings circumstances. Undisputedly, the onus of proving of credits in its books of accounts lies with the assessee and the settled position of law is that the assessee is required to prove all the three criteria, that is identity, genuineness and creditworthine…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Prathmesh Land Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1382/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms Nupur Shah, A.R

Section 132Section 68

…nnel is not sufficient enough. As such, the same (genuineness) should also be proved 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. 10.3 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. 10.4 Similarly in The New Lexicon Web…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Priyesh Housing Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1379/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms Nupur Shah, A.R

Section 132Section 68

Smt. Reshmiben P. Kanugo, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Vadodara

In the result appeal filed the assessee is allowed

ITA 2131/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2131/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Smt. Reshmiben P. Income Tax Kanugo, Officer, 26, Jawahar Society, Nr. Ward 3(1)(3), Bakrawadi, R.V. Desai Vadodara. Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390001. Pan: Azupk6721B 2. 2132/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Shri Alpesh P. Income Tax Kanugo(Huf), Officer, 26, Jawahar Society, Ward 3(1)(3), Nr. Bakrawadi, Ahmedabad. R.V. Desai Road, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aajha5173P 3. 2133/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Shri Parasmal B. Kanugo Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Ward-3(1)(3), 26, Jawahar Society, Nr. Ahmedabad. Bakrawadi, R.V. Desai Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390001. Pan: Aakhp0126Q

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 68

…verted unaccounted money into fictitious exempt LTCG to evade taxes. The finding is unsupported by material on record & is purely an assumption based on conjecture. The theory of human behavior and preponderance of probabilities, based on Sumati Dayal v. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC), cannot be cited as a basis to turn a blind eye to the evidence. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced for ready reference: 12. Mr. Hossain’s submissions relating to the startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue o…

Sh. Amrinder Singh Dhiman, Nakodar vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Phagwara, Phagwara

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

ITA 584/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, Sr DR

Section 40

…s lies on assessee. The assessee has not furnished any explanation whatsoever which shows that even the basic onus to explain these credits has not been discharged. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal VS CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). In the absence of any explanation of the assessee, despite having being given a number of opportunities, as narrated above, these credits, amounting to Rs.13,52,000/- are treated as his income from undisclosed sources and added to his returned income.” Against the order of the ld. AO the petitioner filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The…

Smt. Meera Alpesh Kanugo, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2130/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 68

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…rson who makes the claim and not on the Revenue as being made out by the Ld. AR in his submission. While dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases 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 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. The Hon’ble court also held th…

DCIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Netlink Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2021/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, SR. AR

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

…y concluded that the price of the above shares had been artificially hiked or lowered through circular trading in a complete violation of mechanism of stock exchange’. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), he held that assessee has non-genuine capital gain or loss. However, he allowed the set off of the Capital Gain against Capital Loss and disallowed net capital loss of ₹12,05,287/-. Therefore, assessee as well as the learned Assessing Officer both are aggrieved and are in appeal by cross appeals before us. 012. Learned Authorised Represent…