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 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price riggingcolourable devicepreponderance of probabilitybogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)entry operatoraddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionaccommodation entryshare application money

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

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

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

ITA 43/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…

Pravesh Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 42/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…

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

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

ITA 41/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…

M/S Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

ITA 2020/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

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

Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 2020/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Sanmin Trading & Holding Pvt. Ltd.……………………...………………..……………Appellant [PAN: AADCS 7072 G] Vs. ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata...............................................................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Soumitra Choudhury, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Supriyo Pal, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing :…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Oswal (Deceased) Through Mrs. Manju Oswal (Legal Heir), Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-7, Ludhiana

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT DR
Section 68

…was applicable for trading of shares. 9.2 The A.O. however did not find merits in the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of Rs 59,15,108/- under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) • Durga Prasad More Vs. CIT (SC) • Mcdowell Vs. CTO (SC) • CIT Vs. P. Mohankala dt. 15/05/2007) (SC) • Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT (ITA No. 18/2017 Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) • Chandan Gupta Vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (P&H) • Balbir Chand Maini Vs. CIT [2012] 340 ITR 161 (P&H) • Usha Chandresh S…

Shri Adish Oswal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-7, Ludhiana

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1417/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT DR
Section 68

…was applicable for trading of shares. 9.2 The A.O. however did not find merits in the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of Rs 59,15,108/- under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) • Durga Prasad More Vs. CIT (SC) • Mcdowell Vs. CTO (SC) • CIT Vs. P. Mohankala dt. 15/05/2007) (SC) • Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT (ITA No. 18/2017 Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) • Chandan Gupta Vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (P&H) • Balbir Chand Maini Vs. CIT [2012] 340 ITR 161 (P&H) • Usha Chandresh S…

M/S. Talkatora Investent & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4414/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Talkatora Investment & Trading Co. Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-16(1), 54, Ring Road, New Delhi. Lajpat Nagar-Iii, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact3012G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate, Shri Deepashree Rao, Ca & Shri Vibhu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2014 Of The Cit(A)-19, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Ground Of Appeal Number 1 By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Legal & Travelling Expenses Incurred By The Appellant Wholly & Exclusively In Connection With The Transfer Of Shares Held & Transferred By It & Claimed Against Income Chargeable Under The Head “Capital Gains” As Not Acceptable & Hence Not Allowable.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 48(1)Section 54E

…tion of the AO. While doing so, he observed that the assessee was not able to controvert the findings of the AO and establish the genuineness of the loss claimed. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801, wherein it was held that 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. Accordingly, he upheld the action of the AO. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12.…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…s. Hence, in the cases of ‘bogus share capital’ from ‘paper companies’ the theory of preponderance of human probability as pronounced by the Hon. Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC) is of utmost importance. In the cases where it has been established that the source company is a mere ‘paper company’ solely engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries, the presumption on the basis of human probability may be referred to by the assessing officers to fortify their findings . 3.4 Further in response to show cau…

Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7648/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 68

…also noted that there was circular trading within the group entities of Shri Vipul Bhat which helped in manipulating the prices of M/s SAL. 3.14 Finally, applying the principle of human probability in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801, these transactions were termed as manipulated transaction done by the assessee in connivance with Shri Vipul Bhat to evade the taxes on unaccounted income. In order to obtain such transactions, a commission would usually be paid. The same was estimated @2%. The action of Ld. AO resulted into an addition of Rs.299.76 Lacs in the hands of the asse…

Ramesh Babulal Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbau

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7662/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 68

…also noted that there was circular trading within the group entities of Shri Vipul Bhat which helped in manipulating the prices of M/s SAL. 3.14 Finally, applying the principle of human probability in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801, these transactions were termed as manipulated transaction done by the assessee in connivance with Shri Vipul Bhat to evade the taxes on unaccounted income. In order to obtain such transactions, a commission would usually be paid. The same was estimated @2%. The action of Ld. AO resulted into an addition of Rs.299.76 Lacs in the hands of the asse…

Sanjay Kaul vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-203/2020HC Delhi29 Jul 2020
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 260Section 68Section 69CSection 70

…rokers who coordinated transactions were also unknown to assessee. All these facts give credence to unreliability of entire transaction of shares giving rise to such capital gains. ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 is squarely applicable to case. Though assessee has received amounts by way of 2020:DHC:2420-DB I.T.A. 203/2020 Page 10 of 12 account payee cheques, transactions cannot be treated as genuine in presence of overwhe…

Sanjay Kaul

ITA/203/2020HC Delhi29 Jul 2020
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 260Section 68Section 69CSection 70

…rokers who coordinated transactions were also unknown to assessee. All these facts give credence to unreliability of entire transaction of shares giving rise to such capital gains. ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 is squarely applicable to case. Though assessee has received amounts by way of 2020:DHC:2420-DB I.T.A. 203/2020 Page 10 of 12 account payee cheques, transactions cannot be treated as genuine in presence of overwhe…

Hespera Realty P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 94(7)

…not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents." (v) In the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed the supreme importance of the test of human probabilities- "This, in our opinion, is a superficial approach to the problem. The matter has to be considered in the light of human probabilities. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the Chairman in his dissenting opinion. In our opinion, the majorit…

Krishnaping Alloys Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2261/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkrishnaping Alloys Ltd Vs. Acit-10(1)(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Aaykar Bhawan Pinnacle Corporate Park M.K.Road Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 020 Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aacck0121F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…the 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 SumatiDayal v. CIT 1995l 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (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…

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2333/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of the creditor the explanation offered is not satisfactory. It placed no duty upon him to point to the source from which the money was received by the assessee. 13.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (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. The Hon‟ble Supreme 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 produced…

Gargi Ganguly, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It), Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2147/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. Dcit(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/P Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alspg8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri I. Banerjee, Ca Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) - 22, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2017 In Case No.15/Cit(A)-22/Kol/10-11/15-16 & 14/Cit(A)-22/Kol/11-12/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’); Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Persued. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Substantive Ground Raised In Both The Instant Appeals Challenges The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating The Sums In Issue Of Rs.60,34,310/- & Rs.44,61,160/-(Assessment Year Wise Respectively) As Income

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 127Section 131Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. DCIT(IT), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/p Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ALSPG8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri I. Banerjee, CA Respondent by : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S.…

Gargi Ganguly, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It), Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2146/KOL/2018[ 2010-11 ]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. Dcit(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/P Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alspg8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri I. Banerjee, Ca Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) - 22, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2017 In Case No.15/Cit(A)-22/Kol/10-11/15-16 & 14/Cit(A)-22/Kol/11-12/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’); Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Persued. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Substantive Ground Raised In Both The Instant Appeals Challenges The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating The Sums In Issue Of Rs.60,34,310/- & Rs.44,61,160/-(Assessment Year Wise Respectively) As Income

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 127Section 131Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. DCIT(IT), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/p Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ALSPG8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri I. Banerjee, CA Respondent by : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S.…

Kundan Rice Mills Limited, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat Circle, Panipat

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 853/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Ms. Uditi Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of certain illiquid stock options somehow succeeded to at least choose its partner in 57% trades.” 8.7. The A.O. relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs., Commissioner of Income Tax 214 ITR 801 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Somnath Maini vs., Commissioner of Income Tax 306 ITR 414 (P&H) for considering the issue in the light of principle of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances and held that 19 ITA.No.853/Del./2020 M/s. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Panipat. “the loss on stock option claim…

Khushi Conbuild (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 31/KOL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] [Through Virtual Court]

Section 131oSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…m aggregating to Rs. 16,62,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit and addition to that extent was made by him to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act by relying inter alia on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (214 ITR 801). 3. The addition of Rs. 16,62,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 by treating the entire share capital and share premium as unexplained cash credit was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal 3…

M/S. Appear Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Tech - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 649/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 131Section 143(3)

…company with no visible future prospect. Keeping in view all these facts of the case as well as by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT – vs.- Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) as well as in the case of Sumati Dayal –vs.- CIT (214 ITR 801) and the decision of Kolkata Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s. Bisakha Sales Pvt. Limited –vs.- CIT, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of share capital and share premium aggregating to Rs.1,20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit and an addition to that extent was made by him to the total income of the assessee in the assessment comp…