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 367,514 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

The Dy. CIT 4(1), Indore vs. M/S. Vijayshri Packaging Ltd., Indore

ITA 721/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vijayshri Packaging Dcit-4(1), Vs. Limited, 34-C/2, Industrial Estate Laxmi Indore Bai Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aabcv0048B C.O.No.11/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vijayshri Packaging Vs. Dcit-4(1), Limited, 34-C/2, Industrial Estate Indore Laxmi Bai Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No. Aabcv0048B Revenue By Shri Lal Chand, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ranjan Agrawal, Cas Date Of Hearing 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2021 O R D E R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)(viib)Section 68

…cer, satisfactory", which it wasn't found to be in this case. 4. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) ignored landmark 'decisions of the Apex Court such ITA No.721/Ind/2019 & C.O.11/Ind/2020 Vijayshri Packaging Limited. as Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Durga Prasad More (214 ITR 801), Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 1995 AIR 2109, McDowell & Co. Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer 1986 AIR 649, and NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs PCIT(2019),and their applicability in the case on hand. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to or deduct from or otherwise amend the above grounds of appeal. 3. Assessee has raised follow…

Jatinder Pal Singh

ITA/16/2021HC Delhi08 Feb 2021

Section 130Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 202Section 260A

…ircumstances clearly prove that assessee has no explanation whatsoever of the cash found from his possession during the course of search by the CBI. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 80 (SC) has held that “the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probability”. If the said test is applied in this matter, it is clearly established that the assessee has failed to prove source of Rs. 2 crores found during the course of search by the CBI at his residence. Thus, appeal of assess…

Ninestar Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2183/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…he taxpayer had failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share premium money. He terms the impugned share subscription premium ₹690/- per share having face value of ₹10/- each as highly exorbitant. Case laws Sumati Dayal vs. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the course of hearing that the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assessment has to be considered as per the human probabilities by removing all blinkers. Our attention is thereafter invited to the relevant nuances of such share subscription routing i…

ACIT, Central Circle, Bikaner vs. M/S. Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Bikaner

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 482/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

Section 131

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.C.I.T. Vs. M/s Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. PAN No. AARFM 0027 E Revenue by Shri A.S. Yadav, JCIT DR Assessee by Shri P.C. Parwal, CA Date of Hearing 05.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 29/08/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.…

Vinod L. Gadhiya, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2785/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 153A

…reciating the genuineness of transaction sole reliance cannot be placed on documents and the same are to be examined in the light of surrounding circumstances and human probabilities. (i) C1T vs. Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC) (ii) Sumati Dayal. vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. P, Mohankala, (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) 14 ITA Nos.2785 to 2788/Mum/2019 & ors. Shri Vinod L. Gadhiya & ors. Here it will be pertinent to note the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC) made in the context of sale and purchase transactions of prize winning lottery tickets wh…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Puranmal Food India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 502/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2011-12 Acit Vs. Puranmal Food India Pvt. Ltd. Cent. Circle 3 R/O F-28, New Delhi Smalakha Bandh Road, Near Hotel Uppal Orchid New Delhi - 110 037 Pan Aafcp3180Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 107/Del/2019 Asstt. Year 2011-12 Puranmal Food India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit R/O F-28, Cent. Circle 3 Smalakha Bandh Road, New Delhi Near Hotel Uppal Orchid New Delhi - 110 037 Pan Aafcp3180Q (Appellant) (Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68

…discharge the primary onus of proving the identity and capacity of the persons making the investment and the genuineness of transaction. Relying various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 the AO made addition of Rs. 2.50 crore to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that full details of the share application money received from Shri Abhay Ajay Agarwal and Shri Ajay Chamanlal Kanwal along with share application from, bank statements confirmation etc. were fi…

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

…ws that the entire transaction was only a sham transaction to book the artificial loss to off set the long term capital gains generated on originally held 1,00,000 shares. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati dayal 214 ITR 801(SC), wherein it has been held that 'if explanation of the assessee is not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer, acting reasonably, there is a prima facie evidence against assessee and if assessee fails to rebut the same, such unrebutted evidence can be used against him'. In the present case, the assessee has a valuer's report showing value…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…to Special Investigation wing report on black money. Thereafter he referred to the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Harsh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005). He also mentioned the following case laws : • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) • Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) • Mc.Dowell & Co. Limited (154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. The…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Sh. Rajneesh Thakur, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-VII, Ludhiana

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1565/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1565/Chd/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: ShriSudhirSehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriAtulJayaswal, Sr. Dr

Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

…deposited inthe bank on 20th and 21st December 2000 , is not believable. This explanation ofthe assessee also defies the human probability as discussed by the assessingofficer in the case of CIT v/s Durga Prasad more 82 ITR 540 and in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 where honourable Supreme Court has decided,that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find outthe reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of humanabilities. Here in this case the assessee has completely failed to explain its conductand the explanation of the assessee is beyond h…

Copore Industries Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 340/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Copore Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, C-44, West Jyoti Nagar, North Circle-6(2), West Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHCA0578R Assessee by : Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against…

A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Durgapur vs. M/S Kalyan Educational Society, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose while the cross-objection of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

ITA 1242/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)

…o discharge the primary onus of proving the identity and genuineness of the transactions as held by the Hon’ble Court in the cases of Kale Khan Md. Hanif (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatu (1977) 107 ITR (SC), Biju Patanaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) and Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC).” Grounds of Assessee’s cross-objections: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,45,01,400/- on account of unsecured loans. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 4,39,84,532/- on account of finance cost incurred 3 ITA…

M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. I.to., Ward-2(1), Burdman

ITA 501/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Lakshmi Narayan Rice Income Tax Officer, बनाम & Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(1), Aayakar / Vill-Kalsi, P.O. V/S. Bhawan, Court Chotkhanda, P.S. Memari, Compound, Burdwan- Burdwan, Pin-713146 713101 [Pan No.Aabcl 6230 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 68

…lf amount to proving genuineness / creditworthiness of the investor parties in view of hon'ble apex court’s decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) & Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1995) 80 Taxmann.89/214 ITR 801 (SC). There can be no dispute about the hon'ble highest court of the land having settled the law. The fact also remains that these twin investor parties herein have also explained source of impugned share application money as it is clear from a perusal of the page 43 wherein M/s Astha Rice Mill (P) Ltd. stated the source of impugned share applica…

M/S Moongipa Development and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range -7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 625/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 625 & 626/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Moongipa Development बिधम/ Dcit Central Range-7(3) Room No.655, 6Th Floor & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. 203/204 Raigad Darshan, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, Jp Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Andheri West, 400020. Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm1616E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.625/M/2019 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. Ita Nos. 625 & 626/M/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. AR)

Section 127Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 625 & 626/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. Moongipa Development बिधम/ DCIT Central Range-7(3) Room No.655, 6th Floor, and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. 203/204 Raigad Darshan, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, JP Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Andheri West, 400020. Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAFCM1616E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue by: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. AR)…

Vemb Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 11 (3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2518/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2518/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/S. Vemb Lifestyle Private Limited Acit-11(3)(2) बनाम/ D-13, Ansa Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhavan Saki Vihar Road, Saki Naka Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv-0704-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Chintamani Dingankar-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/11/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani Dingankar-Ld.Sr.DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ed the additions by way of elaborate written submissions, however, the same could not convince Ld. First appellate authority. After noticing the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 as well as in Sumati Dayal V/s CIT 214 ITR 801, Ld. CIT(A) concurred with Ld. AO’s findings 4 Assessment Year 2013-14 that no purchases were actually made from these parties. Therefore, in the light of various judicial precedents rendered in similar circumstances, the estimation of 12.5% was held to be justified. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. Upon careful conside…

Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…is a shell company, accordingly AO treated the loan taken from this company as disallowable under section 68 of the Act. 6. By relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT versus Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) and Sumati Dayal versus CIT (214 ITR 801), AO observed that the revenue authorities are also supposed to consider the surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities. He observed that loan transactions from paper companies though apparent but not to be real one. Further he observed that merely producing PAN, computerized confirmation or assessment particulars do not…

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ed to look into the details of the documents produced and make thorough investigation into the transactions to find out the actual motive behind it. It is well settled principle of law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) that the true nature of transactions have to be ascertained in the light of surrounding circumstances. It needs to be emphasized that standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. It is also well settled that tax authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstanc…