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

Smt. Priya Arora W/O Sh. Sarvesh Arora, Shivpuri vs. I.T.O., Shivpuri

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 347/AGR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 131Section 68

…ly, the donor had two sons till she chooses to make gift to the assessee who was not even related to her by blood (was just the wife of elder brother of husband). The Gift transaction on being tested on the anvil of the Supreme Court judgment in Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) and other judgments relied by the AO miserably fail to qualify as a genuine gift transactions. In the Indian context generally Gift exchange hands only some social or pious occasions. In Indian social mileu/society it is a fact that wives of brothers generally have strained relationship. Exchange of Gifts, in Indian social mileu, between the wiv…

Seema Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 59(1), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed, without any order as to costs

ITA/723/2018HC Delhi11 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 68

…specifically depicted therein. " 14. In view of the aforesaid factual background, the Tribunal was right and justified in relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), to reject mere paper work and look at the reality behind a facade created to hoodwink and deceive. Merely because the transaction was squared in the next ITA No.723/2018 Page 8 of 8 financial year would not establish that the transaction was genuine and not bogus. 15. In view of…

Shri Mujaffar Hussen, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Short Delay In Submission Of The Appeal.’’

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR
Section 44ASection 68

…) Jaipur Once appellant has proved Identity of loner, genuineness of transaction, and Creditworthiness of loner then loan taken by appellant could not be treated as unexplained/undisclosed and not liable to addition u/s 68. In the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme court held that while considering the explanation of the appellant, the revenue or Department cannot act unreasonably. Where the appellant has shown all the evidence to substantiate the case, the same cannot be ingnored by the department and claim unsatisfactory In the case of CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain (2010) 320 itr 554, wher…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Pujan Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 68

…22/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. PujanDealcomPvt. Ltd 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the Rs. 5,85,00,000/- by ignoring the decision of the Hono'ble Supreme Court in the case of SumatiDayal (214 ITR 801) Hon'ble Delhi HC's decision in Nova Promoter & Finance Pvt Ltd. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the said addition ignoring the fact that some of the companies in question are known entry operator. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting…

Shri Pankaj Rustagi, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4905/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Acit, Sh. Pankaj Rustagi, 1159, Kucha Mahajani, Circle-19(1), New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi Pan :Adapr8531N (Appellant ) (Respondent ) Appellant By Sh. R.K. Malhotra, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2018 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 131Section 132ASection 143(2)

…apparent is not the real and the tax authorities 18 are entitled to look at the surrounding circumstances to find out the realities and the matter as to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. 5.3 In the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the assessee shown winning from the horse races. The assessee stated that she started going to the races in 1969 and she won her jackpot on 12/12/1969, i.e., the 1st day on which she went to the races. She also stated that she worked out the combination of the winning horses on the basis of what her husband advised her but she used to add s…

Sanjay Kailash Gupta, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 3(4), Kalyan

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

ITA 7077/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7077/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sanjay Kailash Gupta The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 707, A7, Kingstone Yogidham, Ward 3(4), Kalyan Murbad Road, Shop No. 1, 2, 3, Kasturigram Society, Rani Mansion, Kalyan (West) Vs. Khadakpada, Kalyan (West) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Adtpg 0574 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Aarju Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.06.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane Dated 13.07.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Issue Raised Is That Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 12.5 % Of Bogus Purchase.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 8 Sanjay Kailash Gupta 14. In thes…

Anusha Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5754/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Anusha Trading Private Ito 9(1)(3), Mumbai. Limited, Nityanand Sadan, Plot- बिधम/ 133, Bardwadi, Cross Lane, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahca5317L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Ito 9(1)(3), M/S Anusha Trading Private Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Limited, Nityanand Sadan, Plot- बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 133, Bardwadi, Cross Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400058 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahca5317L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Ltd. (ITA No. 1946/Mum/2016, dated 28.02.2018). The ld. D.R in his rejoinder rebutted the case laws relied upon by the counsel for the assessee. The ld. D.R taking support of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sumati Dayal (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), submitted that the facts borne from the records in the case of the present assessee, on being viewed in the backdrop of the principle of preponderance of probability, clearly revealed the falsity of the claim of the assessee of having received the aforesaid amount by way of share application money and share premium from the aforementioned c…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 MOTI ADHESIVES P. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 17(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV., NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI – 110 085 (PAN: AAACM9114E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 26.3.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…C website, therefore, these are no bogus entities. In reply, the Ld. DR invited our attention to page 7 and 28 of the assessment order. The crux of argument by Ld. DR is in support of the addition. Reliance was placed upon the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (214 ITR 801)(Supreme Court), CIT vs Shri Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540)(Supreme Court) and another (2018) 92 taxman.com 46(Ahmadabad Trib.) 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of construction of residential/com…

Eastern Copper Manufaturing Co.Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir 9(1), Kolkata

ITA 336/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2012-13 Eastern Copper DCIT, Circle-9(1), बनाम / Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, V/s. Ltd. 42/1, Strand Road, 2nd Chowringhee Square, Floor, Kolkat-700 001 Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AAACE 7015 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Amitav Bhattacharya, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing…

M/S Masum Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-14(3). Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1238/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Masum Tradelink Pvt V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd. P-107, Unique Park, Ward-14(3), Aayakar Behala, Kolkata-700 034 Bhawan, Poorva, 110, [Pan No.Aahcm 2616 A] Shanti Pally, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Jhjharia, Advocate & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Sen, Advocate Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 02.02.2017 Passed In Case No. 224/Cit(A)-5/W-14(3)/15-16, Ex Parte Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Adding Share Premium ₹10,22,50,000/-, U/S 68 In Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Come To Relevant Facts. There Is No Dispute That The Assessing Officer Had Framed The Impugned Assessment In Assessee’S Case On 25.03.2015 Adding The Share Application / Share Premium Money Of ₹10,22,50,000/- On Account Of Its Alleged Failure In Proving Identity Coupled With Genuineness & Creditworthiness Thereof During The Course Of Scrutiny.

Section 143(3)Section 264Section 264(4)Section 68

…er. This made him to raise very serious doubts on genuineness and creditworthiness of its share premium explained going by hon'ble apex court’s landmark decisions in CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 80 Taxman 89/214 ITR 801 (SC) resulting in the impugned addition. 3. The assessee preferred appeal. We find that CIT(A) issued three notices on 24.06.2016, 06.09.2016 and 02.12.2016 for corresponding hearings on 20.07.2016, 07.11.2016 and 02.01.2017; respectively. The CIT(A) thereafter records that he received assessee’s letter on 26.12.2016 seeking withdrawal of the low…

DCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Godwin Construction (P) Ltd., Meerut

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4012/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2005-06 & Ay: 2006-07 Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit, Central Circle A-151, Defence Colony Bhaisali Ground Mawana Road Meerut Meerut Pan: Aaefg 1843 R Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09 Dcit, Central Circle Vs. Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. & Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.A. Department By : Sh.Sanjit Singh, Cit, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2018

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. And Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Sanjit Singh, CIT, D.R
Section 292CSection 68

…rial for rebutting the presumption and therefore addition made by Ld.AO has been justified. 6.2. By placing reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dyal vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 801, it has been submitted that alleged receipts seized during search from the premises belonging to assessee should be appreciated from the standard of preponderance of probabilities. 6.3. Ld.AR has submitted that alleged receipts have been found lying in an inoperative site office of assessee pertaining to period from 29/03/05 to 20/06/05 which is…

DCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Godwin Construction (P) Ltd., Meerut

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4011/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2005-06 & Ay: 2006-07 Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit, Central Circle A-151, Defence Colony Bhaisali Ground Mawana Road Meerut Meerut Pan: Aaefg 1843 R Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09 Dcit, Central Circle Vs. Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. & Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.A. Department By : Sh.Sanjit Singh, Cit, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2018

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. And Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Sanjit Singh, CIT, D.R
Section 292CSection 68

…rial for rebutting the presumption and therefore addition made by Ld.AO has been justified. 6.2. By placing reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dyal vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 801, it has been submitted that alleged receipts seized during search from the premises belonging to assessee should be appreciated from the standard of preponderance of probabilities. 6.3. Ld.AR has submitted that alleged receipts have been found lying in an inoperative site office of assessee pertaining to period from 29/03/05 to 20/06/05 which is…

DCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Godwin Construction (P) Ltd., Meerut

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4010/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2005-06 & Ay: 2006-07 Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit, Central Circle A-151, Defence Colony Bhaisali Ground Mawana Road Meerut Meerut Pan: Aaefg 1843 R Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09 Dcit, Central Circle Vs. Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. & Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.A. Department By : Sh.Sanjit Singh, Cit, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2018

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. And Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Sanjit Singh, CIT, D.R
Section 292CSection 68

…rial for rebutting the presumption and therefore addition made by Ld.AO has been justified. 6.2. By placing reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dyal vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 801, it has been submitted that alleged receipts seized during search from the premises belonging to assessee should be appreciated from the standard of preponderance of probabilities. 6.3. Ld.AR has submitted that alleged receipts have been found lying in an inoperative site office of assessee pertaining to period from 29/03/05 to 20/06/05 which is…

M/S. Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3227/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2005-06 & Ay: 2006-07 Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit, Central Circle A-151, Defence Colony Bhaisali Ground Mawana Road Meerut Meerut Pan: Aaefg 1843 R Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09 Dcit, Central Circle Vs. Godwin Construction Pvt.Ltd. Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. & Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.A. Department By : Sh.Sanjit Singh, Cit, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2018

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. And Sh. Ravinder Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Sanjit Singh, CIT, D.R
Section 292CSection 68

…rial for rebutting the presumption and therefore addition made by Ld.AO has been justified. 6.2. By placing reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dyal vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 801, it has been submitted that alleged receipts seized during search from the premises belonging to assessee should be appreciated from the standard of preponderance of probabilities. 6.3. Ld.AR has submitted that alleged receipts have been found lying in an inoperative site office of assessee pertaining to period from 29/03/05 to 20/06/05 which is…

Supermax Personal Care P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

ITA 6107/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 2(47)Section 254(1)Section 9Section 9(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ केकेकेके” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, संदीप एवं संदीप संदीप गोसांई संदीप गोसांई गोसांई, "याियक गोसांई "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6107/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Su…

ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Kishore Kumar M.Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Ito 20(2)(3), Kishore Kumar M Jain, Mumbai. Gala No.222, Bharat Industrial Vs. Estate, Thakorshi Jivraj Road, Mumbai 400 015. Pan Aacpj6434F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Kishore Kumar M Jain, Ito 18(2)(4), Mumbai 400 015. Mumbai Vs.

For Appellant: Shri B P Puroht & Ms. Lavanya RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshen
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ok into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probability. For this proposition, I draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 wherein the Supreme Court has held "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 being her winning from races was not genuine." In the instant case, copies of gift deeds are found from the pr…

Kishorekumar M. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 393/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Ito 20(2)(3), Kishore Kumar M Jain, Mumbai. Gala No.222, Bharat Industrial Vs. Estate, Thakorshi Jivraj Road, Mumbai 400 015. Pan Aacpj6434F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Kishore Kumar M Jain, Ito 18(2)(4), Mumbai 400 015. Mumbai Vs.

For Appellant: Shri B P Puroht & Ms. Lavanya RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshen
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ok into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probability. For this proposition, I draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 wherein the Supreme Court has held "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 being her winning from races was not genuine." In the instant case, copies of gift deeds are found from the pr…

Sh. Basant Kumar, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

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

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…T [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) 8 ITA No. 514 (Asr)/2017 (AY 2014-15) Basant Kumar v. Dy. CIT Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) Dayal Singh & Sons v. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 90 (P&H) Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) A credit in the assessee’s books of account, as explained, is itself an evidence against him and, therefore, the same has to be proved a…

The Income Tax Officer, Gurdaspur vs. Sh Joginder Singh, Gurdaspur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 148/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 148/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Joginder Singh s/o Sh. Sukhdev Ward-6(4),Gurdaspur Singh C/o Evercharge Auto Works G.T. Road, Gurdaspur [PAN: ARGPS 5763B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.) Respondent by: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.) Date of Hearing: 16.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 24.05.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue, directed against the Order by the C…