SHRI OM PRAKASH PHATANDAS PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

ITA 968/IND/2016Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 January 2018AY 2008-0913 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in treating the share transaction as sham. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including contract notes and bank statements, to prove the genuineness of the purchase and sale.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold equity shares of IFCI Limited, declaring short-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated the transaction as bogus and added the difference between sale proceeds and an estimated purchase value as unexplained credit, doubting the delayed payment for share purchase.

What were the issues?

Whether the delayed payment for share purchase renders the transaction non-genuine and the capital gains as unexplained credit? Whether the gains should be treated as short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 111A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Girish Agrawal, CA (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Jain, Sr.DR, Shri Girish Agrawal, CA (AR)
Hearing: 02.01.2018Pronounced: 19.01.2018

PER MANISH BORAD, AM.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [in short referred to as the CIT (A)] dated 23.05.2016 is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 15.12.2010 framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Indore pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal.

ITA No.968/Ind/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 Omprakash Phatandas Panjwani

“1 Because of facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in confirming action of

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →