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 367,181 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.S. Infosolution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2989/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

…oking 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.” 7. This was further endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “dismissing the appeal that the Settlement Commission after considering the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities had rightly concluded that the appellant’s claim about the amount being her winnings from races was not genuine.” 8. Now we will examine how the rati…

Shri Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2663/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…hought which is make believe transaction to explain the cash deposits in the bank accounts. It is further seen that declaration of gift has been not made on the stamp paper, therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) which refers the human probability and behavior. According to which as per Indian / Gujarati Customs and Culture where parents are expected to give Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 25 of 37 gift to son and not vice-versa. It is also noticed that the assessee has ch…

Shri Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2031/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…hought which is make believe transaction to explain the cash deposits in the bank accounts. It is further seen that declaration of gift has been not made on the stamp paper, therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) which refers the human probability and behavior. According to which as per Indian / Gujarati Customs and Culture where parents are expected to give Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 25 of 37 gift to son and not vice-versa. It is also noticed that the assessee has ch…

Smt. Jullie Amit Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2030/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…hought which is make believe transaction to explain the cash deposits in the bank accounts. It is further seen that declaration of gift has been not made on the stamp paper, therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) which refers the human probability and behavior. According to which as per Indian / Gujarati Customs and Culture where parents are expected to give Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 25 of 37 gift to son and not vice-versa. It is also noticed that the assessee has ch…

Smt. Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2029/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…hought which is make believe transaction to explain the cash deposits in the bank accounts. It is further seen that declaration of gift has been not made on the stamp paper, therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) which refers the human probability and behavior. According to which as per Indian / Gujarati Customs and Culture where parents are expected to give Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 25 of 37 gift to son and not vice-versa. It is also noticed that the assessee has ch…

Smt. Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Surat vs. The the Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1545/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144

…hought which is make believe transaction to explain the cash deposits in the bank accounts. It is further seen that declaration of gift has been not made on the stamp paper, therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) which refers the human probability and behavior. According to which as per Indian / Gujarati Customs and Culture where parents are expected to give Amit Kumar Kaneria & Others /I.T.A. No’s.2031, 2663, 1545, 2029 & 2030/Ahd/2015/SRT/A.Y:2010-11 & 11-12 Page 25 of 37 gift to son and not vice-versa. It is also noticed that the assessee has ch…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6099/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6099/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2012-13) DCIT(CC)-1(3) M/s. Jainam Investments Vs. Room No. 905 11-A/5th Floor, Rockside Old CGO Building Appartment, Walkeshwar Annexe, M.K.Road Road, Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAHFJ 1230A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.C. Tiwari Department by Shri Abhijit Patankar Date of Hearing 17.7.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.8.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) : The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 28.7.2016 pa…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…important for indicating whether gift was genuine or not? One has to see the entire facts and circumstances i.e. all the factors mentioned above, in a comprehensive manner and then those have to be considered with the aspect of human probability (Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801) i.e. general customs and conduct prevailing in the society. 4.2 If we deploy the above mentioned yardstick in ITA. 2165 (Del) of 2008. Smt. Achla Dhawan, Meerut. 7 this particular case, what we observe is that there is no blood relation and no valid occasion for making such gift has been explained. On the other side of line of evidence, are the…

The Assisatant Commissioenr of Income-Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur

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

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) [affirming 34 ITR 669 (MP)] 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 vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) CIT v. Y.M. Singla [2014] 366 ITR 242 (P&H) Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) The reason for the same is simple; the assessee being in receipt of a sum of money, the onu…

Sadabahar Vyapaar Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

ITA 1650/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ted 30.03.2014 suggests that none of them appeared. All this made the Assessing Officer to doubt genuineness / creditworthiness of the above share capital and premium amounting to ₹3,20,15,000/- in view of hon'ble apex court’s decision in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) and other judicial precedents. 3. Needless to say, the CIT(A) has affirmed the above stated addition in his lower appellate order passed ex parte. 4. Learned counsel representing assessee submits during the course of hearing CIT(A) hearing notice was admittedly not served on account of instant taxpayer’s alleged insufficient address. He ta…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Zeco Aircon Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 5231/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2005-06 Dcit, Circle- 18(1), Zeco Aircon Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Dda, New Delhi. Shopping Complex, Vs. Near Sindhi School, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2005-06 DCIT, Circle- 18(1), Zeco Aircon Ltd., 2nd Floor, DDA, New Delhi. Shopping Complex, Vs. Near Sindhi School, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. PAN : AAACZ0195N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.128/Del/2015 (In ITA No.5231/Del/2014) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Zeco Aircon Ltd., DCIT, Circle- 18(1), 2nd Floor, DDA, New Delhi. Shopping Complex, Near Sindhi School, Vs. New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. PAN : AAACZ0195N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dep…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue stand

ITA 4858/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Vs Shri Sandeep Singh Khinda, Ward 17(3), 2 Golden Gate, Westend Greens, New Delhi. Rajokari, New Delhi-110038 (Pan: Atvpk2160R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri K. Tewari, Sr. Dr Assessee By: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292C

…T. Act, merely because some papers were found from the premises of the assessee while ignoring vital facts and contentions of the assessee. To support his contention he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and the ruling of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 3.4.2014 in the case of True Zone Buildwell and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Babu Mohan Lal order dated 7.11.2013. In view of the above, he stated that the Appeals of the assessee may be allowed. 15. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below a…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue stand

ITA 4857/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Vs Shri Sandeep Singh Khinda, Ward 17(3), 2 Golden Gate, Westend Greens, New Delhi. Rajokari, New Delhi-110038 (Pan: Atvpk2160R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri K. Tewari, Sr. Dr Assessee By: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K. Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292C

…T. Act, merely because some papers were found from the premises of the assessee while ignoring vital facts and contentions of the assessee. To support his contention he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and the ruling of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 3.4.2014 in the case of True Zone Buildwell and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Babu Mohan Lal order dated 7.11.2013. In view of the above, he stated that the Appeals of the assessee may be allowed. 15. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below a…

Satish Waman Wagh, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT Range - 24(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 6026/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6026/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Satish Waman Wagh Joint Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 207/208, Udyog Bhavan Tax-24(1) Sonawala Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 063 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapw-7907-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Rahul K. Hakani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…orities 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. The same ratio was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (S.C) and it was reaffirmed in the case of CIT v. P. Mohankala (2009) 291 ITR 278 (S.C). Keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court it is held that the story of the assessee earning bumper agricultural income is beyond human probabilities. The assessee has not been able to explain the following facts: - (a) The assessee has not been able…

Sukumar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 24(3), New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6074/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 68

…anies, and nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to say that the money received by the assessee is somewhat different and the money which Rock Land owns is different. The Ld. AR submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 very categorically held that while taxing an income under section 68 revenue cannot act unreasonably. The Ld. AR submitted that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Abdul Hasib (ITA No. 213/2007 order dated 05.09.2014) after taking note of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal (Supra) held that total impact of an entry is to be seen wh…

Sanskriti Tradex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 24(3), New Delhi

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 68

…anies, and nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to say that the money received by the assessee is somewhat different and the money which Rock Land owns is different. The Ld. AR submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 very categorically held that while taxing an income under section 68 revenue cannot act unreasonably. The Ld. AR submitted that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Abdul Hasib (ITA No. 213/2007 order dated 05.09.2014) after taking note of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumati Dayal (Supra) held that total impact of an entry is to be seen wh…

ITO, WD-6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Linkpoint Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1209/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 68

…that all the above narrated facts sufficiently indicated that the share premium in question was neither genuine nor creditworthy. He quoted hon’ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More[1971] 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC) that all the relevant documentary evidence filed before the courts or tribunal have to be appreciated applying test of human probabilities. All this resulted in the impugned unexplained share application money addition of Rs.31,69,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) reverses the Assessing Officer’s action as follows :- “ I have gone…

ITO, WD-6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Luxury Vyapaar Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1200/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 68

…that all the above narrated facts sufficiently indicated that the share premium in question was neither genuine nor creditworthy. He quoted hon’ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More[1971] 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC) that all the relevant documentary evidence filed before the courts or tribunal have to be appreciated applying test of human probabilities. All this resulted in the impugned unexplained share application money addition of Rs.31,69,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) reverses the Assessing Officer’s action as follows :- “ I have gone…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…ase of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 3…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…the assessee are fake............” 13. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del) " CIT, Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Sumati Dayal vs. CIT-Bangalore [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) " CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. 307 ITR 334 (Delhi) " Jalan Timber vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau) 23 Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. " Addl. CIT Bihar vs. Hanuman Prasad Aggarwal 151 ITR 151 (Pat) " CIT vs. Kannan Kunhi 87 ITR 395 " CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. 307 ITR 334 " CIT vs. Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 14.…