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.

How many judgments cite Sumati Dayal v. CIT?

1,967 judgments on BharatTax cite Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sumati Dayal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 115BBE.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801)

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Prop., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5556/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Asstt.Commissioner Of Inome Tax, Vs Shri Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Circle –I, Block I-B, M/S Neumann Engineering New Cgo Complex, Work, 16/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Faridabad. H.No. 1506, Sector-15, Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…n of the correct principles of law, was the Tribunal legally correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer by applying the test of human probability evolved in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)? 3. Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal reversing the order of CIT (A) thereby having the effect of sustaining the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 is based on irrelevant findings, illegal, perverse and a result of wholly erroneous approach not permitted by law?” Admitted.” 7. The Ld. AR submitted that in…

Vision, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s for A

ITA 8501/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Vision A C I T, Circle 19(3) 49/2358, 1St Floor, Bandra Mumbai Saikrupa Co-Op Housing Vs. Society Ltd., Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 Pan - Aaefv5389H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Goel

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

…made the required enquiries arrived at the conclusion that the payments to ‘Nova’ amounting to `48,49,624/- was nothing but accommodation entries. The learned D.R. placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Deyal vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) to urge that by applying the test of ‘human probabilities’ it is difficult to believe that ‘Nova’ could render the services allegedly rendered. It was therefore placed that the orders of the authorities below be upheld. 4.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judic…

I.T.O WD - 9(4), Kolkata vs. Shri Manas Moitra, Kolkata

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

ITA 448/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 68

…I.T.A. No 448/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 448/KOL/ 2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Income Tax Officer,.............................................................Appellant Ward-9(4), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 -Vs.- Shri Manas Moitra,..........................................................Respondent 173, East Sinthee Road, Dumdum, Kolkata-700 030 [PAN : AEKPM 8558 H] Appearances by: Shri Kalyan Nath…

Kantadevi Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2829/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is as it is only where the STT is chargeable, that an exemption u/s. 10(38) enures. No material has been brought on record by the assessee to establish its’ case, besides clai…

Santlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2)

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2802/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is as it is only where the STT is chargeable, that an exemption u/s. 10(38) enures. No material has been brought on record by the assessee to establish its’ case, besides clai…

Hassan Ali Khan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4156/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 153A

…Mag.); Umakant B. Agrawal vs. Dy. CIT [2014] 369 ITR 220 (Bom); CIT vs. Narinder Kumar Sekhri [2015] 228 Taxman 35 (P&H)(Mag); Edayanal Constructions vs. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 671 (Ker). In fact, that apart, the decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), rendered considering four precedents by the hon’ble Apex Court, is a locus classicus on the subject. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to deviate from our decision as delineated at paras 11-12, 15, 25, 30 and 49 of this order, to which therefore reference is drawn. We decide accordingly. 66. Ground 10 is qua an addition, since con…

Bhanuben Danji Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1735/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1735/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Bhanuben Danji Shah Asst. Cit-23(2), बनाम/ E/31, Konark Indraprasth, Mumbai 11Th Floor, Jain Mandir Road, Vs. Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Amrps 1215 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash L. Pathade सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26.12.2011, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2004-05 Vide Order Dated 21.12.2006. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee-Appellant When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, Nor Any Adjournment Application Stands Received. This, Despite The Hearing Having Been Adjourned For Today Instant At The Request Of The Assessee’S Counsel, Shri Mukul J. Vora (Vide His Letter Dated 22.7.2015/Copy On Record). It Was 2 Bhanuben Danji Shah Vs. Asst. Cit Noted That On Earlier Occasions As Well, The Appellant Has Sought For & Been Granted Adjournment Of Hearing. The Appeal, Filed In 2012, Is Pending Since Long. It Was Under The Circumstances Only Considered It Proper That The Matter To Be Proceeded With & The Appeal Decided After Hearing The Party Before Us & Considering The Material On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 68

…to such a degree of probability that any prudent man may on its basis believe the existence of the fact in issue. Adjudications under the Act could be based on such basis, and toward which we may refer to the decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801(SC), where the Hon’ble Court upheld the rejection of a plethora of documentary evidences on the basis of it being against the preponderance of human probabilities. Be that as it may, in our considered view the assessee has been wholly unable to substantiate her case with any credible evidence/material on record, with, rather, the Revenue bringing…

Sidharth Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 3888/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 Sh. Sidharth Jain, C-780, New Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2), Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan: Aaapj2273Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 69A

…the transaction was genuine. It is well settled law that the Assessing Officer can take note of surrounding circumstances as held in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Durga Prasad More (1977) 82 ITR 540 and Smt. Sumati Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). In the later decision, the Apex Court has held that considering the surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities is a must. Firstly, it is surprising to note that the assessee who is able to receive a gift of Rs. 5 lacs, could not produce the passport of Sh. Ajay Saini and vide letter dated 13.04.2010, written to t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hi- Tech Residency Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4707/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 68

…igh Court, while deciding the cases of Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., General Exports & Credits Ltd. and Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (299 ITR 268), had taken care of the 11 earlier decisions in the cases of Stellar Investment Ltd. (251 ITR 263-SC}, Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801-SC}, Sophia Finance Ltd (205 ITR 98-Del), Korley Trading Co. Ltd. (232 ITR 820-Cal), Shankar Industries (114 ITR 689-Cal), Precision Finance P. Ltd. (208 ITR 465- Cal), United Commercial and Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd. (187 ITR S96-Cal). It may be worth pointing out here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Revenue's SLP aga…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Khalil M Bharwani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 223/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 223/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer-19(3)(2) Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor अपीलाथ"/Appellant Piramal Chambes, Parel Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 बनाम/ Vs. Ms. Khalil M. Bharwani ""यथ"/Respondent Flat No. 9, Noor-E-Rehmat 59-B.J. Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan - Ajjpb7570L अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar ""यथ" क" ओर से/ Respondent By: Shri B.V. Jhaveri सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2015 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal KumarFor Respondent: Shri B.V. Jhaveri

Section 68

…iven in (ITA No.2913/MUM/1995 dt.12.09.2005 wherein the Mumbai (ITAT has held that the findings of Mcdowell's case is still applicable and has to be respected. The AO has also further relied upon the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Sumati Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801 & Durgaprasad More in 82 ITR 540 where the Apex Court has held that certain matters have to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities.” 4. The matter was carried before the first Appellate Authority wherein assessee stated as under for its claim 7 Ms. Khalil M. Bharwani that the transaction is genuine and the gains should be ass…

Manish C Jogani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7344/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7344/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Manish C. Jogani, Huf Ito-16(2)(2), बनाम/ C/21, Shree Ganeshprasad Chs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Sleater Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 8076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7345/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Sandeep C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalhs 2461 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7346/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Girish C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhg 0062 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Champaklal D. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahj 8938 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : (A.Y. 2008-09) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2015 Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Four Appeals By Different Assessees, Agitating The Dismissal Of Their Appeals Contesting Their Respective Assessments U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 07.2.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Vide His Separate Orders Of Even Date (20.10.2014). The Issue/S Arising Being Common, The Appeals Were Posted For Hearing & Were Accordingly, Heard Together.

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Smt. Bharati Singh

Section 143(3)

…Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is as it is only where the STT is chargeable, that an exemption u/s. 10(38) enures. No material has been brought on record by the assessee to establish its’ case, besides clai…

Smt. Rita Chopra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6815/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri C. M. Garg

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…appellant was found incorrect after in-depth investigation as demonstrated and mentioned in the assessment order. The AO therefore, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Durga Prasad more; 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal; 214 ITR 801, taxed the sum of Rs. 000/- u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income initiated in respect of the sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- charged to tax u/s 2(22)(e) by the AO were concluded vide impugned order” I.T.A. 6815/D/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200…

Aktiebolaget Electrolux Sweden, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG I, Mumbai

ITA 7628/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Parthasarathy Choudhuryअपील सं/.Ita No.7628/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 अपील सं/.Ita No.8695/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Aktiebolaget Electrolux Sweden Income Tax Officer-1(3) C/O. Srbc & Associates14Th Floor, Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor Vs The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Murbad Road, Kalyan Dadar (W),Mumbai-400 028. Mumbai. Pan: Aadca 9239 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri K. Krishna Murty सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2015 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dt. 06/09/2012 & 27/09/2009 Of Drp-I, Mumbai, The Assessee, Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Above Mentioned Two Orders Respectively:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri K. Krishna Murty

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234bSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…अिधकरण, ‘ए’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI ABENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं पाथ"सारथी चौधरी,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member & Parthasarathy Choudhury,Judicial Member अपील सं/.ITA No.7628/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 अपील सं/.ITA No.8695/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Aktiebolaget Electrolux Sweden Income tax Officer-1(3) C/o. SRBC & Associates14th Floor, Rani Mansion, 2nd floor Vs The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Murbad Road, Kalyan D…

Unique Gem & Jewellery, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3)

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

ITA 1825/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & B.R.Baskaran (Am) सर्वश्री जोगगन्दय ससिंह, न्मायमक सदस्म एर्िं बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सिं./I.T.A. No.1825/Mum/2014 (यनधावयण र्र्व / Assessment Year :2010-11) Unique Gem & Jewellery बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 271, Business Park, Tax, Range -24(3), Bandra Kurla Vs. Vishveshwar Nagar, Complex, Near Virvani Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400051. Model Industrial Colony, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 10B

…ng survey. It is not possible that such basic details are not maintained in this line of business. No satisfactory reply could be given by the assessee. vi). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 and in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 has held that test of human probabilities should be applied to verify whether any transaction is real or an attempt has been made to give it a colour of reality. In the case of the assessee, an attempt has been made to claim that it was engaged ineligible manufacturing activity althouqh the evidences gathered prove that no manufacturing was done…