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 367,368 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

Rajda Polymers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-36, Kolkata

In the result, this assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2414/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 16Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…e the assessee. She sought to refer to both the lower authorities’ detailed discussion rejecting the genuineness of assessee’s claim in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s landmark judgments in the cases of Sumati Dayal & Durgaprasad More reported in (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & 82 ITR 540(SC) as well as the recipient’s authorised person, Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta’s statement dt. 27-01-2015 admitting to have been providing accommodation entries to its donors. I find no merit in revenue’s instant reason. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in ITA No. 2346/Kol/2018 Raj Karan Dassani dt. 8-5-2019 had already…

Shagun Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2395/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…k Exchange itself has confirmed that the transactions in question, the loss cannot be disallowed. The Assessing Officer applied the theory of human probabilities and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati DayaJ v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT-vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), and made the disallowance. 2.1. On appeal the Id. First Appellate Authority, upheld this order of the Assessing Officer. He held that human error cannot occur on all occasions. He observed that the derivative transactions took place through a broker but on different dates. He also applie…

Sketch Housing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(4), Kolkata

In the result, this assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1589/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)

…ord its D-Mat holding, statement, contract notes of purchase and sale of shares and bank statements, but the same do not inspire confidence since suffering from lack of genuineness and creditworthiness as per Sumati Dayal & Durgaprasad More reported in (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & 82 ITR 540(SC). The very factual position continues before the Tribunal since there is no material to rebut the same. I therefore confirmed the impugned disallowance/addition of bogus loss of Rs. 5,97,034/-. 3. In the result, this assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 31 -01-2020 (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial…

Sri. B.T. Dayananda Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 134/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Dilip Junior Standing counsel

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 2Section 234A

…ld the transaction to be colourable device to avoid taxation, as assessee used provisions of law to generate capital without paying any tax. Ld.CIT(A), placing reliance upon CIT vs Durga Prasad More reported in 821 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dayal vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 held ITANo.134-135/Bang/2012 A.Y.2004-05 & 2007-08 Page 9 of 17 that, what is apparent need not be real. He accordingly, upheld addition made by Ld.AO. Aggrieved by order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 4. Ld.AR submitted that, said agricultural land was originally purchased by assessee from one Sh.Abdul Khudus, vide sale de…

Sri. B.T. Dayananda Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 135/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Dilip Junior Standing counsel

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 2Section 234A

Mr Amrat B Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, W-19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5982/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaamrat B Prajapati Vs. Ito-19(1)(1) 2Nd Floor 8/10, Room No.15 Ganjawalla Building Matru Mandir Tardeo 2Nd Carpentar Street Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Akspp3697G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251Section 37(1)

…s from supplier to assessee or any other form of evidence of delivery, even though payment was made through cheques and purchases are evidenced by suppliers bills, the purchases are liable to be disallowed in toto. 6.6 Reliance is also placed on Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801 SC) and Durga Prasad More ((1971) 82 ITR 540 SC) to state that the apparent must be considered 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 th…

Acg Arts & Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2749/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2749/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acg Arts & Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle-42 बनाम/ 1001, Dalamal House Aaykar Bhavan 10Th Floor, Nariman Point M.K.Road Vs. Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacu-0615-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D.Mistry & Madhur Aggarwal-For Respondent: Shri Harshad Vengurlekar-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153B

…of CIT vs. 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. (iv) In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 the Supreme Court, interalia 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 further that any transaction about which direct evidence is rarely available should be inferred on the basis of circumstances available on the record. In…

Gaurav Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 60 (5 ), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1234/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D. R

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…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”. (b) In the case of Sumati Dayal v CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801, the court observed, “Thus, 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 majority opinion after considering the surrounding circumstances and applying the…

Shailesh Jaiswal, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, - Katni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 166/JAB/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2005-06 Shailesh Jaiswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaiswal Dhaba, Ward-Katni, (M.P.) Kuthla Thana, Pureni, Katni (M.P.) [Pan: Adtpj 3555H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…r v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT v. P. Mohanakala & Ors. [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) The addition, however, is to be restricted to Rs. 2,79,000, i.e., the aggregate amount of the cash credits. The balance cash deposited (i.e., Rs. 21,000), is sourced from the assesses’ cash book qua which the Revenue has not made any observation entitling it to draw an adverse inference. We…

Overtop Vincom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(2), Kolkata

ITA 1160/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 68

…pex court of the land has laid down the Human Probability Test to analyze the genuineness of the entry through logical analysis in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) which has also been followed in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). Applying the test of human probability and preponderance of probability as laid down by the Apex Court to the surrounding facts and circumstances of this case, as discussed above, the claim of the appellant is farfetched and cannot be sustained on the test of Human Probabilities. Moreover, the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of H…

Ravi Bhaskar Wattamwar, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (1), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1169/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1169/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 10(38)

…as a suspected shell company and further the SEBI has initiated enquiry in this matter and has also restricted trading in shares of PS IT I&SL. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal vs. 4 Ravi Bhaskar Wattamwar CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), the AO applied the test of human probabilities and declared the long term capital gain shown by the assessee as non-genuine. Considering the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H of Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain vs. The Pr. CIT, the AO made addition of Rs.19.…

Akshay A. Choure, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (1), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1168/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1168/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 10(38)

…there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real, as is the case under consideration 7 Akshay A. Choure as well, then the apparent should be ignored to unearth the harsh reality. 6. 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 of p…

Yogesh Amrutlal Doshi, Thane vs. ITO 2 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 6651/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No6651/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Yogeshamrutlaldoshi Ito-2(4) R. No.22, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Bldg. No.B-3, Flat No. 201, Vs. Poonam Nagar, Phase-Iii, Rd. No.16Z, Ashar It Park Opp. Shanti Nagar, Mira Thane(W), 400604. Road (E), Thane-421104. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Agspd2681C (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shrinimeshchothani Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. Ar)

For Appellant: ShriNimeshChothaniFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 145Section 147Section 40A(3)Section 44A

…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 Yogesh Amrutlal Doshi 540 and SumatiDayal 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…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…demanding repayment but did nothing on non compliance therewith.- such letters did not therefore carry any conviction about the explanation of the assessee. Loan amount was rightly held as assessee‟s own undisclosed income. (xvii) In the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801(SC) it has been held that, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In su…

Income Tax Officer 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Om Shanti Houseing, Mumbai

ITA 5614/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathaito-20(2)(3) Vs. Om Shanti Residency Room No.210 9/A, Chunawala Compound Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel Tank Road Mumbai-400 012 Kalachowki Mumbai-400 033 Pan/Gir No.Aabfo2195D Appellant) .. Respondent) & Ito-20(2)(3) Vs. Om Shanti Housing Room No.210 9/A, Chunawala Compound Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel Tank Road Mumbai-400 012 Kalachowki Mumbai-400 033 Pan/Gir No.Aabfo4424B Appellant) .. Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N.PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO-20(2)(3) Vs. Om Shanti Residency Room No.210 9/A, Chunawala Compound Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel Tank Road Mumbai-400 012 Kalachowki Mumbai-400 033 PAN/GIR No.AABFO2195D Appellant) .. Respondent) & ITO-20(2)(3) Vs. Om Shanti Housing Room No.210 9/A, Chunawala Compound Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel Tank Road Mumbai-400 012 Kalachowki Mumbai-400 033 PAN/GIR No.AABFO4424B Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri B.V. Jhaveri, AR Revenue by Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, AR…

Income Tax Officer - 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Om Shanti Residency, Mumbai

ITA 5613/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1365/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2005-06 ITO Vs. Primeland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Ward-14(4) 7th Floor, New Delhi. Meridian Commercial Tower Windsor Place, Janpath New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR) Assessee by : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Date of Hearing 16/10/2019 Date of 10 /01/2020 pronouncement O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by order dated 15th J…

Sanjay Kaul, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1593/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 70

…ven brokers 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 account payee cheques, transactions cannot be treated as genume in presence of overwhelming evidences put forward by Revenue. fact that in spite of earning such steep profits, assessee never ventured to involve himself in any other transaction with broker cannot be mer…

ACIT, Circle-1, Burdwan vs. M/S. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan

ITA 910/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

…iability for tax, it is for him to show either the receipt was not income of that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the pro visions of the Act. In the absence of such proof the ITO is entitled to treat it as taxable income. (II) Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC):- As laid down by this court, apparent must be considered 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. (…

M/S. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Burdwan

ITA 1187/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68