Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995

Incme Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal, Bhopal vs Swarna Sukh, Bhopal on 31 July, 2025

The assessing officer had further relied on the decision of the H'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal V. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) while making the addition u/s 68. However, the above decision will not be applicable to the instant case of the appellant because in case of Sumati Dayal, the H'ble Court had held that "The transaction about purchase of winning ticket took place in secret and direct evidence about such purchase would be rarely available. An inference about such a purchase had to be drawn on the basis of the circumstances available on the record, " implying that circumstantial evidences can be taken in the absence of direct evidence, whereas in the instant case, the facts and evidences clearly evidence that the appellant has made the cash sales and there were sufficient stocks to meet the sales. Thus, the facts of the appellant's case are clearly distinguishable from the above decision of the H'ble Apex Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kavita Panjwani, Indore vs Assessee on 22 January, 2013

conspirators/abettor and then for the AR to 221 222 claim find contend that there is no direct evidence that such transactions were not genuine and the transactions were supported by valid documents and were carried out through banking channel and hence should be accepted as genuine knowing fully well that such transactions were not genuine. The aforesaid facts have to be again examined and analyzed with appreciation of the constraints and limitations within which the A 0 has to function and operate. Firstly, these transactions which are normally well documented and are secretly negotiated are scrutinized by the AO after a sufficient gap of time i. e. nearly two years from the end of the relevant F. Y. and then when the appellant/assessee and the other persons abetting the assessee in such manipulation are confronted by the .1'10, there is usual tendency to evade the replies or in the least to delay the replies. The .1'10 again has to finalize the proceedings within the statutory limitation 222 223 involved and then he cannot devote the entire time available at his disposal to a particular case. Here, it will be pertinent to make reference to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) made in the context of sale and purchase transactions of prize winning lottery tickets which are very much applicable to the facts of the case. The same are as extracted here under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balaji Coal Private Limited, Indore vs Assessee on 30 March, 2012

The same analogy was applied later by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayas vs. CIT; 214 ITR 801 (SC) as elaborated on page 808-809 of the report that test of 'Human Probabilities' have to be applied to judge the true nature of any transaction. The same view was again reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking notice of the aforesaid two decision, in the case of P. Mohan Kala; 291 ITR 278 (SC) on pages 288-289 of the report. Further, there are two well known sayings or proverbs which have evolved from the examination of human nature and conduct over a period of centuries and are thus recognised as 'Conventional Wisdom' of Universal application. Similar proverbs exist in many Indian languages and even foreign languages. The proverbs are 'A MAN IS KNOWN BY THE COMPANY HE KEEPS' and 'BIRDS OF SAME FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER'. In Hindi, the near equivalent is "Addami Ki Pehchan Sangat Se Hoti Hai". If the test of 'Human Probabilities' is applied in the light of the two proverb and further test of 'Surrounding Circumstances' is applied, the only logical conclusion which emerges is that share application money brought in by all these assessees has been their own unaccounted money and the same has rightly been taxed by the A.Os u/s 68. In this view of the matter, in the case of the present assessee (i.e. 40 Balaji Coals P. Ltd. 316/09-10 AY 2007-08), I uphold the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of unexplained share capital/share application money."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neelam Mittal, Burhanpur vs Ito Burhanpur, Burhanpur on 25 May, 2021

Smt. Neelam Mittal & Anr ITA No.434 & 435/Ind/2019 On such basis, the ITAT had returned the finding of fact against the Assessee, holding that the genuineness of share transaction was not established by him. However, this is quite different from the factual matrix at hand. Similarly, the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT (supra) too turns on its own specific facts. The above-stated cases, thus, are of no assistance to the case sought to be canvassed by the Revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jastej Gorowara,Bhopal vs Cit(A), Delhi on 23 December, 2025

Relying upon the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. P. Mohankala (291 ITR 278), CIT v. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), the CIT(Appeals) held that mere confirmations were not sufficient and that surrounding circumstances and human probabilities had to be considered. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and upheld the assessment order in toto. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next