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

Shri Uttung Hitendra Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Uttung Hitendra Income Tax Officer, Thakur, Ward 4(5), 1St Floor, Thakur Arcade, Thane, Station Road, Vs. Room No.8, ‘A’ Wing, Virar (West) – 401 303 6Th Floor, Pan: Ajjpt3513H Ashar It Park, Road No.16Z, Midc, Thane (W) – 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…of the shares of the said company were being manipulated without any financial fundamentals. Both the authorities have quoted the general modus operandi and catena of judgment including that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 and Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd., 154 ITR 148. 11. From the perusal of the entire assessment and appellate order nowhere there is any discussion or whisper that there is any material or information with the Department that assessee’s name has appeared as a beneficiary of accommodation entry in any kind of inquiry or investigation conducted by the Depart…

M/S. Pevonia Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2130/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ties have rightly added the impugned share capital/premium as unexplained cash credits since lacking genuineness/creditworthiness as per hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) i.e. relevant evidence has been considered by removing blinkers going by human probability; respectively. He fails to dispute that neither of the lower authorities' order indicates as to whether adequate attempts were made to verify the impugned share capital/premium from the investor parties’ side during scrutiny. Be it as it may, the asses…

Akansha Ispat P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(1)

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stats dismissed

ITA 1229/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood (JM) I.T.A. No. 1229/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Akansha Ispat Pvt. Ltd. ITO-6(1)(1) Vs. Plot No. 275/276, Near Aayakar Bhavan Ganesh Hotel, Kolsa M.K. Road Bunder, Darukhana Mumbai-400 020. Reay Road Mumbai-400 010. PAN : AAHCA2889F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Paresh Shaparia Department by Shri Ravinder Sindhu Date of Hearing 13.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed in order of learned CIT(A) dated 2.12.2016…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gulshan Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1524/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1523/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1524/Del/2015 :Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs M/S Gulshan Chemicals Ltd., Circle-10(2), E-12, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg4002H

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. N. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee had failed to discharge the onus in this regard, and accordingly held that the assessee had used this modus operandii for reducing its profits. Accordingly, applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Sumati Dayal, 214 ITR 801 (SC), the AO disallowed the excess payment of Rs.2650 PMT (Rs.7650-4000 PMT) paid in respect of purchases made from M/s Vaibhav Coal Movers and accordingly, made an addition in respect of purchases amounting to Rs.3,24,54,139/- u/s 69C. 24. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 25. The reason for…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gulshan Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1523/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. N. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

Amit Mafatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5793/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 5793/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Amit Mafatlal Shah The Asst. Commissioner Of 78/80 Gora Gandhi Building, Income Tax, Circle 19(1), बनाम/ Cp Tank Road, C.P. Tank Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 004 (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabps5009A अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.04.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…placed on the decisions cited in para 5 supra. A sale transaction against which no purchase ever took place, does not satisfy the test of human probability. This challenges the test of human probability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumnati Dayal (214 ITR 801 SC) and Durga Prasad More ([1971)82 ITR 540 SC) 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 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 tes…

M/S Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 631/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR

Section 68

…M/s. Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 631/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.632/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. DCIT-Central Range-7(3), बनाम/ R. No. 655, 6th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan Opp. Indian Oil Co., J.P. Road M.K…

M/S. Shreem Packaging Products P. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2280/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain-Ld.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…tors of the stated entities and therefore, a conclusion was to be drawn that these entities were dummy entities being operated by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 640 & Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 to conclude that looking at surrounding circumstances, the share application money against allotment of preference share was not genuine transactions. The retraction affidavit of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain was termed as mere after-thought. Therefore, it was held that the assessee failed to demonstrate the fulfillment of primary ingredients of Sec. 6…

Rameshwar Lal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-71(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4826/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, S. DR

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…as not yet invented any instrument to test 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." In the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 Hon'ble Supreme Court has again given the importance of human probability and held that "The majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities had rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winning from races, was not genuine. It could not be said that the explan…

Gautam Modi, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Ranchi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godarai.T.A No.345/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Ranchi Gautam Modi C/O D.P Paul(Fca), 718A, Nabin Mitra Road, Near Samsung Plaza, Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi. Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm5830B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…g in mind the corresponding scrips upward/downward abnormal price movement coupled with the collateral circumstances sufficiently indicate that the assessee has derived bogus capital gains. They have also applied hon’ble apex court’s decisions in Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 CIT v/s Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) that any explanation tendered in proceedings under the Act have to be considered as per human probabilities by removing all blinkers. Learned counsel’s only plea during the course of hearing is that the CBDT has recently issued a standard operating procedure (SOP) in the year 2019 for examining such alleged…

Reliance Forge (India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6661/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore

Section 143(3)

…rden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. 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…

M/S Shreenath Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2390/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreenath Holding Pvt. Ltd…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant 33/34, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane 2Nd Floor Room No. 2D Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Aadcs 5887 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata…………………………..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 17/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Distribution Of Goods. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 16/08/2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,500/-. During The Year, The Assessee Raised Share Capital Including Premium Amounting To Rs.1,13,55,000/-. The Assessing Officer Conducted Enquiries & The Assessee Presented The Share Holders Including The Directors Of The Share Holding Companies Before The Assessing Officer. After Due Enquiry, The Assessing Officer Accepted The Explanations Of The Assessee That The Cash Credits In The Form Of Share Capital Were Genuine, Except In The Case Of M/S. Seacom Merchants, Which Had Applied For Shares. An Amount Of Rs. 20,00,000/- Pertaining To M/S. Seacom Merchants, Was Added.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

…bscription premium premium money. He terms the impugned share subscription premium ₹690/- per share having face value of per share having face value of ₹10/- each as highly exorbitant. Case exorbitant. Case laws Sumati Dayal vs. CIT Sumati Dayal vs. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the cour (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) is further quoted during the course of hearing that se of hearing that the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assessment has to be the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assess…

ACIT, Trichy vs. K.Udhayakumaran, Trichy

In the result, the Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 917/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos: 916 & 917/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri. K. Udhayakumaran, Income Tax, No. 1-A, Vignesh Complex, Central Circle -1, Dindigul Road, No. 44, Williams Road, Trichy – 620 001. Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. [Pan: Aalpu 6054B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri. S. Bharath, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020

Section 132ASection 69A

…gree with the same. He held that the burden lies on the assessee to explain the nature and sources of the cash of Rs. 5,10,75,500/- found on 04.04.2011 and therefore relying on the Supreme Court cases in the case of Durga Prasas More 82 ITR 540, Sumathi Dayal 214 ITR 801 and P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 etc. the AO held that the assessee could not explain the sources from which he earned the said income nor he could produce evidence in support of accumulation of the said income in cash from that period of time. Therefore, the AO brought the seized sum to tax u 69A. On appeal, the Ld . CIT(A) accepted the explanatio…

ACIT, Trichy vs. K.Udhayakumaran, Trichy

In the result, the Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 916/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Section 132ASection 69A

Jagdish Prasad Khaitan, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-35(2), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1221/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2010-11

Section 147Section 68

…rasad Khaitan. Vs. ITO Wd-35(2), Kol. Page 2 that not only both the lower authorities have gone by the entire facts on record but also they have considered various judicial precedents including Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1995) 80 Taxmann. 89/214 ITR 801 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs.Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) to conclude that the assessee’s alleged commodity transactions suffer from lack of genuineness / creditworthiness. The very factual position continues before me as well. I therefore affirm the impugned addition under challenge. 3. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.…

Moraj Buildings Concepts P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4582/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Pradip Kapasi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nitin Waghmode, DR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…e from Shri R.A. Chug on 24.09.2007. While coming to the above conclusion, I have taken into consideration the surrounding circumstances as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801.” M/s Moraj Building Concepts Pvt. Ltd 16 7.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterates his submission before the Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, at page No. 90 of Annexur…

Shri Harish Kumar Buyani, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.Circle-34, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2547/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2010-11

Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2010-11 Sri Harish Kumar Biyani ACIT, Circle-34, 110, बनाम / 138, Canning Street, Shanti Pally, Aayakar V/s. Dalhousie, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [PAN No. AFJPB 4085 N] Kolkata-700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.L.Kochar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-02-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 14-02-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year…

Indianivesh Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle- 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6843/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…. Prashant (P) (1994) 121 CTR (Cal) 20, the Calcutta High Court has held that even payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. 6.1.5 Further, in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, the Supreme Court, Inter-alia, held as under: 'in such cases, a superficial approach to the problem should be eschewed and the matter has to be considered in the light of human probabilities and farther that any transaction about which direct 3 M/s. Indianivesh Insurance Brokers Private Limited evidence is rarely available should be inferred o…

A.N.Muthiah, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-21(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2188/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…earlier purchases are available cannot be accepted to be correct. xi) In this regard, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the following cases: 1. CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) 2. Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with principles of preponderance of probabilities has held that certain transactions cannot be just accepted on the face value and one has to analyse the preponderance of probabilities based on all the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.…

Samudra Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2586/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…. Limited Rs.99,750,000/- as unexplained cash credits on account of its alleged failure in proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor parties as per hon’ble apex court’s judgments in Sumati Dayal & Durgaprasad More reported in [ (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & 82 ITR 540(SC)]. A perusal of the case file indicates the instant its involve multiple round of proceedings u/s. 147/143(3)/144 r.w.s 263 of the Act. This assessee is a company engaged in share trading business. It filed its return on 25- 08-2019 declaring total loss of Rs. 4478/-. The same stood assessed. The assessing authority then forme…