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 367,154 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

Bhadresh Trading Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

ITA 2083/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 101Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…auj AIR 1969 (SC) and SumatiDayal Vs. CIT (1905) 2014 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and SumatiDayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). (vii) that the purchase from hawala operators falls within the ambit of the term "colourable devices" and the Supreme Court observed in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 that "Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to e…

Dilip Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 5739/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri G.Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 5739 To 5745/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02 To 2007-08) Shri Dilip Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 401, Spenta Towers, 55/57 Tax, Central Circle-11 Mumbai Vs. Forgett Street, Gowalia Tank Mumbai 400036. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acwps4146B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 132

…counts as unexplained income of the assessee. 30. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also relying upon a plethora of judgements including the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that apparent must be considered real unless 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 C…

Atul Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 5713/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri G.Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 5739 To 5745/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02 To 2007-08) Shri Dilip Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 401, Spenta Towers, 55/57 Tax, Central Circle-11 Mumbai Vs. Forgett Street, Gowalia Tank Mumbai 400036. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acwps4146B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 132

…counts as unexplained income of the assessee. 30. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also relying upon a plethora of judgements including the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) wherein it was held that apparent must be considered real unless 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 C…

R.R.Chemicals & Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 61/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 61/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 62/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 20 10-11)

Section 133(6)

…CIT Vs. La Medica (250 ITR 575), wherein it was held that the purchases claimed to have been made from non-existing concern is liable to be disallowed. The AO also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801), wherein it was held that the issue may be considered in the light of human probabilities. Accordingly the AO took the view that the purchases have been claimed to have been made from non-existent parties should be disallowed. Accordingly he disallowed the entire amount of purchases of Rs.8,64,110/- in AY 2009-10 and Rs.1,78,200/- in AY 2010-11.…

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 3617/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3617/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The A.C.I.T.-27(3), Vs. Shri Vikrant Vikas Raikar, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Prop. M/S Elegant Construction, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Plot No. 8, Hotel Pearl, Vashi, D.K. Sandu Marg, Chembur, Navi Mumbai - 400071 Mumbai - 400071 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpr2711C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)
Section 143

…of bogus purchases made during the relevant year. The Ld. DR relying on the various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunals including the judgment passed in Kachwala Gems 288 ITR 10 (SC), Sreelekha Banerjee 49 ITR 112 (SC), Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC) and the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in N.K. Protein Ltd. Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal No. 240, 241, 261, 242, 260 of 2003, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is not in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7…

Kapoor Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 542/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 542/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Kapoor Industries Ito-26(2)(1), बनाम/ Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 161-A, Sai Kutir, Lbs Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai-400 070 C-12, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 4742 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dinesh Rasiklal Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Jenardhanan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.07.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Cit(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 30.11.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Issue Raised Is That Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 25% Of Bogus Purchase Amounting To Rs.8,55,497/-.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Rasiklal ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan
Section 148

…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 honourable 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 8 Kapoor Industries vs. ITO being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above apex court decisions. 1…

Vardhsingh B. Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2978/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Shri V.Janardhanan

…taken 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. 10. In these circumstances learned d…

Rajendra Chandulal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2937/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri V.H.JariwalaFor Respondent: Shri V.Janardhanan
Section 147Section 148

…taken 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. 9. I further find that Hon’ble juris…

Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1237/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…and further suspected that the unaccounted cash of the assessee was layered into the bank account of the exit providers. 3.8 The ld AO relying on the various decisions viz. Hersh Win Chaddha v. DCIT [ITA Nos.3088 to 3098 & 3104/Del/2005, Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), Durga Prasad More v. CIT, Mcdowell & Co. V. CTO, CIT v. P. Mohankala] observed that tax liabilities can be assessed by revenue authorities on consideration of material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of incriminating information/evidence available on record. The ld AO…

Manish Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1236/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…and further suspected that the unaccounted cash of the assessee was layered into the bank account of the exit providers. 3.8 The ld AO relying on the various decisions viz. Hersh Win Chaddha v. DCIT [ITA Nos.3088 to 3098 & 3104/Del/2005, Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), Durga Prasad More v. CIT, Mcdowell & Co. V. CTO, CIT v. P. Mohankala] observed that tax liabilities can be assessed by revenue authorities on consideration of material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of incriminating information/evidence available on record. The ld AO…

Trends Pharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-

ITA 7132/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/S Trends Pharma, The Income Tax Officer-24(3)(4), 6Th Floor, Matharu Arcade, C-11, Pratyakasha Kar Bhavan, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400057 Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan: Aaaft2250K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kirit S Sanghvi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 143(3)

…, the assessee and the Trend Pharma Pvt. Ltd. are controlled by the same persons. Under these circumstances, the transaction is required to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801, where in it has been held that test of human probabilities should be applied to verify the genuineness of any transaction. 9. In Mcdowell & Co Ltd. vs. CTO (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “So far as the contention that it is open to everyone to so arrange his affairs as to reduce the brunt of taxation to the minimum, wa…

Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Suresh Tibrewala, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7072/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR)For Respondent: Shri Iswar P.Rathi
Section 69

…sold and the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any cogent evidence that assessee has received the sale proceeds of the shares. 7. I find that in the cases of bogus accommodation entries, ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801) and Durga Prasad More (32 ITR 540) come into play. In these cases it was held that Revenue authorities should not put on blinkers but should take into account the surrounding economic realities. In this case, I find that Assessing Officer’s observations that assessee has not properly replied to the Assessing Officer’s questions has been totally…

Shyam K Gyanchandani, Ulhasnagar vs. ACIT Cir (2), Kalyan

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6369/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Hari H.DudaniFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

…the requisite paperwork, the purchase cannot be held as genuine. In this regard, the AO has placed reliance in the decision in the case of Hon. ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Phoolwati Devi (2009) 314 ITR ATI (Delhi) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs.5,44,589/- as bogus purchases and added to the total income of the appellant.” 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition, only to the extent of 25% by holding as under:- “From the above discussion, it is seen that the appellant did not produce the Hawala dealers before the Assessing Of…

ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Raghu Nandan Modi, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2186/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member ITA No.2186-2187/Kol/2014 Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/s. Sri Raghu Nandan Modi Ward-36(1), Aayakaar 20, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Bhawan (Poorva), 8th Raasoi Court, Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700 002 Kolkata-107 [PAN No.AEXPM 8474 P] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No. 03-04/Kol/2015 a/o ITA No.2186-2187/Kol/2014) Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sri Raghu Nandan Modi V/s. Income Tax Officer, 20, R.N. Mukherjee Road, W…

Ajay J Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 121/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151

…the then DCIT-12, has reported that pages 42 to 45 were not traceable in the records of the office. A copy of the letter of DCIT has been enclosed with this letter. He also strongly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble sc in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [214 ITR 801]. 7. In the rejoinder, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the reply of the AO to the CIT DR shows that pages 42 to 45 are not traceable, but these papers were filed along with annexure K in letter dated 5-11-08, copy of which has been furnished before us. He pointed out that page 42 is a copy of the share transfer form duly executed by t…

Snehal J. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2231/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-12(3), Chirag Jayant Mehta, R. No.137, 1St Floor, 65, Bajaj Bhavan, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Afkpm6103P Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chirag Jayant Mehta, Acit-12(3), 65, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai बनाम/ Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Afkpm6103P

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT-12(3), Chirag Jayant Mehta, R. No.137, 1st Floor, 65, Bajaj Bhavan, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AFKPM6103P Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chirag Jayant Mehta, ACIT-12(3), 65, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai बनाम/ Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 ("नध…

Chirag Jayant Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2230/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-12(3), Chirag Jayant Mehta, R. No.137, 1St Floor, 65, Bajaj Bhavan, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Afkpm6103P Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chirag Jayant Mehta, Acit-12(3), 65, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai बनाम/ Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Afkpm6103P

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT-12(3), Chirag Jayant Mehta, R. No.137, 1st Floor, 65, Bajaj Bhavan, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AFKPM6103P Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chirag Jayant Mehta, ACIT-12(3), 65, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai बनाम/ Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 ("नध…

Chirag Jayant Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8871/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-12(3), Chirag Jayant Mehta, R. No.137, 1St Floor, 65, Bajaj Bhavan, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Afkpm6103P Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chirag Jayant Mehta, Acit-12(3), 65, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai बनाम/ Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Afkpm6103P

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT-12(3), Chirag Jayant Mehta, R. No.137, 1st Floor, 65, Bajaj Bhavan, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AFKPM6103P Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chirag Jayant Mehta, ACIT-12(3), 65, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai बनाम/ Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 ("नध…

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Chirag Jayant Mehta, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8548/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-12(3), Chirag Jayant Mehta, R. No.137, 1St Floor, 65, Bajaj Bhavan, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Afkpm6103P Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chirag Jayant Mehta, Acit-12(3), 65, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai बनाम/ Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Afkpm6103P

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT-12(3), Chirag Jayant Mehta, R. No.137, 1st Floor, 65, Bajaj Bhavan, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AFKPM6103P Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chirag Jayant Mehta, ACIT-12(3), 65, Bajaj Bhavan, Mumbai बनाम/ Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 ("नध…

Dholadhar Investments Pvt. Ltd., H.P vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4487/DEL/2012[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…litating these bogus transactions. Therefore, the estimate of commission as made by lower authorities cannot be found fault with as the same fits into the scheme of bogus transactions. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the transactions are to be viewed on the basis of surrounding circumstances and human conduct, which are against the assessee. Therefore, the additions on account of commission are also upheld.” Page 3 of 14 4. During the course of the penalty proceedings, the assessee besides various explanations, had strongly urged and submitted that, n…