SumatiDayalVs. CIT(214 ITR 801) and Durga Prasad More v. CIT

182 ITR 540Reported decision#23358 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing SumatiDayalVs. CIT(214 ITR 801) and Durga Prasad More v. CIT

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE SINGLE MEMBER CASE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 706/PUN/2019 : Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sangeeta B. Mangrule Plot No. 64, Mayurban Colony, Shahnoorwadi Darga Road, Aurangabad PAN: AJIPM 9153 H :Appellant Vs. The Asstt. CIT Cir. 2, Aurangabad : Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11-08-2022 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)- 2, Aurangabad’s order dated 07-02-2019 passed in case No. ABD/CIT(A)- 2/461/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s 143…

RESHMI SUDHAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 353/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…scussed facts and circumstances of the case and considering the finding arrived at by the AO, I do hold that the impugned transaction was sham transaction. The ratio of the decisions in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801; Durga Prasad More vs. CIT, 182 ITR 540 and CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007), 161 Taxman 169, further strengthens the conclusion that the entire series of transaction was a colourable device to account for the unaccounted money in the form of Long Term Capital Gain claimed as exempt u/s 10 (38) of the Act. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the AO. Hence, the additi…

PRAVIN B JAIN HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4788/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 68Section 69C

…Dayal (214 ITR 801). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while declaring the transaction to be non-genuine, discarded a host of documentary evidences relied upon by the assessee. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More (182 ITR 540) has held that evidences are not by themselves conclusive and the truth of the matter could be determined on the basis of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. It further held that what is relevant while determining the genuineness of the transaction is the substance of the transaction and not its form. 5.4 The timing of the purch…

SumatiDayalVs. CIT(214 ITR 801) and Durga Prasad More v. CIT (182 ITR 540) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax