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

Sanjay Gupta, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1787/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2012-13 Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-3(1), Pan: Acgpg 3696 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2021 Order

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 57

…which proved the transaction to be sham. Therefore, the learned AO relying on the theory of preponderances of human probabilities as enlightened by the hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CITCIT (5) 214 ITR 801 treated the entire amount of Rs.1,86,32,023/- as the income of the assessee. For the above addition, the learned AO has made elaborate discussion in the assessment order. 8. On appeal, the learned CIT confirmed the order of learned AO by observing as under : “13.0 The Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the exemption u/s 10(38) for the…

M/S. Paras Spares & Accessories Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2066/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] M/S Paras Spares & Ito, Accessories Ltd. Ward No.19(3), B-1/126, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi New Ashok Nagar, (Near Metro Pillar No.166), New Delhi-110096 Pan- Aadcp2321D Assessee Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 14ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2009-10] M/s Paras Spares & ITO, Accessories Ltd. Ward No.19(3), B-1/126, 2nd Floor, New Delhi New Ashok Nagar, (Near Metro Pillar No.166), New Delhi-110096 PAN- AADCP2321D Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 13.12.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.11.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…g Officer. Before the CIT(A) it was contended that the Assessing Officer never pointed out any discrepancy in any of the documents submitted and nothing adverse was mentioned about the 2 (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 22 of 150 assessee. Further, it was contended that the assessee has discharged the burden of proving the genuinity of the transaction and the burden of proving the contrary stand shifted to the department which has completely failed to discharge such burden and the assessment having been base…

Ramesh Chand Investment & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

ITA 6009/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. Acit, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan:Aaccr3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anilgandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St March,2013 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That No One Was Appearing On The Previous Occasions. Although Notices Have Been Sent By The Registry Through Rpad, Every Time The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘No Such Person In The Address.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AnilGandhi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…the authenticity of the transaction and reject the paper trail created by the appellant and require the assessee to show that the transaction is really one which is above board which the appellant has failed. “Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumiti Dayal 214 ITR 801 has held that the genuineness of the transaction is to be considered on the basis of surrounding circumstances, human probabilities and the conduct of the connected parties. A transaction does not become genuine merely because a paper trail has been created/filed. The AO while exercising his power as an investigating officer has a right to go bey…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Coastal Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 116/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Coastal Insurance Brokers Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle – 1(2), No.4, 23-J-4, Hyderabad. Jalavayuvihar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500 072. Pan : Aacccs5848F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujundar Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2014-15 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 13.10.2017, In Case No.0399/Cit(A)-1/Hyd/2016-17/2017-18 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujundar

Section 143(3)

…in turn; arranged further service providers by way of outsourcing only. We thus hold the assessee’s impugned payments lacks genuineness element going by the principle of human probability(ies) after removing all blinkers as held in CIT v/s Sumati Dayal (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT v/s Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC). We accordingly accept the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grounds to restore the impugned bogus expenditure disallowance of Rs.2,47,26,160/- in issue. No other ground has been pressed before us. 7 5. This Revenue’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 2 (3), Bengaluru vs. Shri C J Vishwantha, Chickamangaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1891/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…undation showing the total turnover of that business and then the profit margin.” 28. The Appellant begs to place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 20 of 30 V/s. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it has held been 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. 29. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhai Chand.H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (BOM), wherein it has…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanth, Chikkamangaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1893/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanth, Chickamangalur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1892/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanath, Chikkamagaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1896/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanth, Chikkamagaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1895/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri C J Vishwanth, Chikkamagaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1894/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-OSD-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

Rakesh Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-18(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1775/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 68

…t is a manipulated transaction in collusion with broker/entry operator to claim exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act. This is in accordance with the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal Vs. 4 Shri Rakesh Shantilal Shah Commissioner of Income-Tax, 214 ITR 801 (SC), that" the apparent must be considered the real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. ( CIT v. Durga P…

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Arihant Kumar Jain, New Delhi

ITA 5342/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143Section 68

…here, the decision of the final fact finding authority is made conclusive by law.” 5.2 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 on the part of the Assessing Officer 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…

Shri Govind Rathi, Prop. Govind Dall Mill, Hoshangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Itarsi, Itarsi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/JAB/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Govind Rathi, Dy. Cit, Vs. Circle – Itarsi, Prop: Govind Dall Mill

Section 143(3)Section 68

…inkers on his eyes (CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC)) nor convert an otherwise good explanation into a bad one (Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), and be guided by preponderance of probabilities (Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC)). Further, where any of the said variables, viz. agricultural income, tuition income, personal withdrawals, etc., stand assessed or determined by the Revenue in proceedings in the case of the creditors, he shall adopt the same, or state reason/s for not doing so, as where he finds a change in or non-consideration of the underlying facts and…

M/S. Kanha Capital Services Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 5, New Delhi

ITA 2916/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh[CIT] – D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…at the said section is very widely worded and an Income-tax Officer is not precluded from making an enquiry as to the true nature and source thereof even if the same is credited as receipt of share application money." In the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC). Their Lordships held that a capital receipt can become taxable if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is not satis factorily explained. The judgment in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) lends no assistance to the assessee because in that case the Divisi…

Bcl Securities Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 37

…llant’s Reply: In this regard the appellant would like to submit that the ld.CIT(A) has referred to decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of CIT vs. Durga Prasad Moorereported in [1971] 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumati Dayal reported in [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and pointed out that the Apex Court has held in these casesthat the test of human probability after considering the surrounding circumstances should be applied. Thereafter in light of these decisions the ld. CIT(A) has held that the appellant’s explanation fails the test of human probability, without however specifying and/or explaining as t…

Ankur Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 40(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 124/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. A. Manu, Sr. D.R

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

…cial Investigation Team Report by two highly respected judges of the Supreme Court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. B. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) with respect to the test of human probabilities. He further relied on the several judicial precedents and held that assessee has used a pre-arranged device in the form of booking of bogus sale consideration of Rs.1,68,38,880/- during the relevant year to bring into books the unaccounted income of the assessee. Therefore, denying the exemptio…

Brij Mohan Loya, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/IND/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri C.M. Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Singh, SR DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…a search case and nothing was found during search to support this allegation. The decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500 : (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (SC) 124 : (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), which speak about human probabilities and realities which have to be taken into consideration while dealing with income-tax matters. In fact, this is not such a case. The ratio decidendi of these decisions would not apply in the absence of any direct piece of evidence available on record. The reality of life which may be treated as such in…

Dy CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Leena Poower Tech Engineers P Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1313/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business As 'Investment Company' In Column 10, Page 1, Of The Impugned Assessment Order. Its Assessment Under Section 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e reliability of the evidence placed before a court or tribunal. Therefore, the courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities". Similarly, in a later decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the 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 these tick…

Kiran Infertility Centre Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 630/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra, DR

Section 194CSection 201(1)

…the entire surrogacy procedure adopted by the assessee with the so called NGO and its authorised person as it is evident from the perusal of the case file in the light of human probabilities after removing all blinkers as held in Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) [214 ITR 801] (SC) and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) [82 ITR 540] (SC). We thus conclude that so far as the application of 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) is concerned, the assessee’s all other arguments regarding taxability of the surrogate mothers also deserve to be rejected since its payee himself had admitted that it had not maintained any accounts of the paymen…