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 366,470 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

Kenhans Shares & Stock P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3940/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

…4) The Ld CIT(A) also expressed the view that the conduct of the assessee should be examined by applying the test of human probabilities and in this regard he took support of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801). Accordingly he confirmed the order passed by the assessing officer on this issue. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 5. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished all the details relating to the share application money. He submitted that there is no information with the assessee that these companies are providin…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 13/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ubstance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances were such which clearly showed that it was a financing lease and not a normal lease. 4.9. The AO also referred to the decision relied b…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5854/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ubstance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances were such which clearly showed that it was a financing lease and not a normal lease. 4.9. The AO also referred to the decision relied b…

Ge Money Financial Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4235/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ubstance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances were such which clearly showed that it was a financing lease and not a normal lease. 4.9. The AO also referred to the decision relied b…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4206/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ubstance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances were such which clearly showed that it was a financing lease and not a normal lease. 4.9. The AO also referred to the decision relied b…

Ge Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1)

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1357/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ubstance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances were such which clearly showed that it was a financing lease and not a normal lease. 4.9. The AO also referred to the decision relied b…

Ramnagar Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 77/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 76/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 77/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7421/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava,CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “D” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 76/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 77/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7421/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s Ramnagar Development बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Corporation, Income Tax – Cent. Circle v. 811, Embassy Centre, 24 & 26, 8 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumb…

Ramnagar Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 76/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 76/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 77/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7421/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava,CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “D” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 76/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 77/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7421/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s Ramnagar Development बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Corporation, Income Tax – Cent. Circle v. 811, Embassy Centre, 24 & 26, 8 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumb…

Ramnagar Developent Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 7421/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 76/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 77/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7421/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava,CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “D” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 76/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 77/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7421/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s Ramnagar Development बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Corporation, Income Tax – Cent. Circle v. 811, Embassy Centre, 24 & 26, 8 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumb…

M/S. Aerens Developers and Engineers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5054/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.S. Reddy Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens Developers & Engineers Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens R. Infra-Structure Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri R.K. Garg, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 :08.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessees Have Questioned The First Appellate Order On The Following Common Grounds Of Appeals: The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Taxing The Compensation Of Rs. 1 Crore As Revenue Receipt Ignoring The Various Judicial Pronouncements & Submissions Of The Assessee. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Wrongly Rejected The Additional Evidence, I The Shape Of Fard Of Land & Resolution Of The Company, Produced By The As Per The Provision Of Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Garg, DR

…uapharam – ITA No. 372/Pune/2002 dated 29.2.2012 (supra) before the Pune Bench, the other party of Germany had failed to supply the knowhow against which compensation was awarded. He placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) – 214 ITR 801 (SC); ii) Durga Prasad More vs. CIT (1971) – 82 ITR 540 (SC). 9. In rejoinder, the Learned AR submitted that there is no any allegation of colorable device to obtain the award and the only issue involved is as to whether the compensation received on the breach of the agreement by the assessee is Revenue or capital in nature. 10. Considering the…

ITO, Ward - 3(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Chitravali Sales (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 68

…from Commercial Tax Officer was also furnished to corroborate the claim of sales in the subsequent year to those impugned customers. 4.19. It was argued that the ld AO had applied the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 (SC) . The ld AO suspected that assessee has ever carried on business of sand in the absence of past experience and therefore possibility of receipt of advances is remote, consequently applied the above judgment. It was submitted that the reliance on the said judgment has no basis in view of the fact that the work order for raising sand were allo…

Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Developers, Mumbai

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

ITA 8337/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

For Appellant: Shri Kailash GaikwadFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Shah
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…umstances of the case. Further, where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of an amount credited in its accounts, the A.O. was entitled to draw an inference that the receipt is of an assessable nature. In Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), the hon’ble apex court, after referring to its earlier decisions in Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. 5 Dy. CIT vs. Saraswati Developers CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC); and CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), held as under: ‘…

ITO WD 1(3), Thane vs. Amar Diamond Tools, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7671/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7671/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito, Ward – 1(1), Amar Diamond Tools Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Shivdarshan Building, Mumbai बनाम/ Ashar It Park, Road No. 16-Z, Pune Road, Mumbra, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 612 Thane (W)-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfa 7543 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Bhatt

For Appellant: Shri S. R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7671/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITO, Ward – 1(1), Amar Diamond Tools Room No. 23, B-Wing, 6th Floor, Shivdarshan Building, Mumbai बनाम/ Ashar IT Park, Road No. 16-Z, Pune Road, Mumbra, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 612 Thane (W)-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAHFA 7543 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…

Regal Shoes (I) P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 6408/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6408/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Regal Shoes (I) Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ 36, Ai Mehrab, Income Tax – 5(3), V. 3Ed Peerkhan Street, Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Nagpada, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 008. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabcv9451E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist,Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he racket of hawala. The assessee company could not provide any documentary evidence of actual delivery of material allegedly purchased from the said party. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal, (1995)214 ITR 801(SC) as well as in the case of P. Mohankala, (2007)291 ITR 278(SC) to content that one has to consider all surrounding circumstances for accepting the genuineness of a ITA 6408/Mum/2014 8 transaction. The ld. CIT(A) observed that detail enquiries were made by the Sales Tax department and it was revealed that the party from whom the assessee comp…

Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12
Section 68

…proach to the burden being laid almost entirely on an assessee which receives a gift.” 9.3 Thereafter, in paras - 7 to 10 of the judgment, Hon’ble High Court considered the decision of the Hon’ble of Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal versus CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises versus Additional CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) and full bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sophia Finance (supra). In paragraph 12, the Hon’ble High Court has considered the decision in the case of CIT versus Precision Finance Private Limited (…

Udayraj N. Pal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2868/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Udayraj N. Pal Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4) 25B, New Kant Wadi 304, Piramal Chambers Vs. Perry Cross Road Parel, Mumbai 400012 Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Pan - Alqpp2215D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…at Vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad 72 ITR 194 (SC) (c) CIT Vs. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) Keeping in view the above facts, & circumstances, it is held that the assessee has failed to submit documentary evidences and produce the parties before the A.O. for examination because there was non- compliance to the notice u/s 133(6), therefore, it is held that the assessee has failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuinenes…

ITO, Ward - 56(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Pks Holdings, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1677/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1677/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-56(2) -Vs.- M/S. Pks .Holdings Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaifp7778G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Updhay, Ar

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Updhay, AR
Section 88E

…rty belonged to him and not to his wife. The CIT(A) was of the view that this decision was also rendered in a different context and not relevant to the case of the Assessee. The CIT(A) was also of the view that the decision in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) was a case where the : The assessee had pleaded that she has earned income by winning from horse races, which was exempt from tax. But the income tax authorities proved that it was her unaccounted monies, mainly on the grounds that the Assessee had poor knowledge of racing, improbability that one person will win jackpot in three seasons cont…

Manisha Bipin Bhinsara, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4512/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Manisha Bipin The Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Bhinsara, Ward 25(2)(2), V. 501/A, Yogi Ratna, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Mogaveera Bank, Mumbai – 400 051. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Amlpb7464N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri V.S. Jadhav,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4512/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Manisha Bipin The Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Bhinsara, Ward 25(2)(2), v. 501/A, Yogi Ratna, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Mogaveera Bank, Mumbai – 400 051. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AMLPB7464N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sanjiv M. Shah Revenue by : Shri V.S. Jadhav,DR सुनवाई क" त…

Shrinivas Mittapali, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 7333/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7333/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Shri Shrinivas Mittapali, Ito – 18(1)(3), बनाम/ Room No. 69, Mumbai. V. B.D.D. Chawl, Acharya Dhondi Baba, Narayan V. Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aiwpm7694J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran,DR
Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 80I

…believed in banking system and kept cash with him as he trusted no one. The assessee submitted that there is no PAN of the father available with him. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT, [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court decision in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT (2004) 136 taxman 213(Gau.). 10. We have observed that the assessee has filed return of income for the first time during the impugned assessment year 2003-04. The assessee has filed capital account with the Revenue with opening balance of Rs. 8,98,601/. Since t…

D.K. Enterprise, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 15 & 16, Mumbai

ITA 6086/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6086/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 वष" D.K. Enterprise,Mangrol Mansion Acit, Central Circle 15 & 16 Gunbow Street, Fort,Mumbai-400 001. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,Maharshi Karve Marg Pan: Aaafd 7060 K Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri B.S. Bist-Sr.A.R. Assessee By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order,Dtd.24/05/2010 Of The Cit (A)-23,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Building Construction, Filed Its Return Of Income On 01/12/2003,Declaring Total Income At Rupees Nil.The Assessing Officer (Ao) Completed The Assessment,U/S.143(3) Of The Act, On 14/02/2006, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5.10 Crores.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,The Authorised Representative(Ar)Of The Assessee Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pressing The Second Ground Of Appeal.Hence,The Same Stands Dismissed,As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist-Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…the entire span of about 2 to 3 years (November 2004 to March 2006) the assessee was not able to prove the genuineness of the loan taken in spite of the fact that a number of opportunities were provided by the AO.The FAA referred to the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801),Nanakchand Laximdas (104 ITR 151) and held that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender, that the AO had made a detailed effort.Finally,he held that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the loan from Arvind Enterprises(Rs.25,000/-)Jasbir Sing Manektala (Rs.9, 63,60…