ACIT19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. YOGESHKUMAR PRAVINKUMAR SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 6163/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 February 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue of commission, which was the genesis of the revenue's appeal, had already been decided in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year. In that prior decision, the Tribunal had directed the deletion of the addition for bogus capital gains and commission expenses.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15, which had deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,37,960 related to commission expenses. The AO had added this amount by estimating commission paid for unexplained transactions involving penny stocks, while also confirming an addition of Rs. 68,98,020 for bogus Long Term Capital Gains.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of commission expenses related to alleged bogus capital gain transactions from penny stocks.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR, Shri Om Kandalkar, Advocate
Hearing: 05.02.2026Pronounced: 06.02.2026

Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The aforesaid appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 03.07.2025, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, which in turn arises from the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.12.2017. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: Yogeshkumar Pravinkumar Shah. “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ed. CIT APPEAL has erred in delet

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →