PAYAL SUKHRAMANI,SATNA vs. ITO WARD-2 , SATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 95/JAB/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 May 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal subject to conditions. The Ld. Sr. DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal against the ITO's order. The assessee had claimed sale of shares as exempt. There were alleged errors in sustaining additions and invoking certain sections of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions for sale of shares, commission payments and invoking specific sections, despite the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 10(38),Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR

Hearing: 20.05.2025Pronounced: 22.05.2025

A.Y. 2012-13 Payal Sukhramani, vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.128/3, First floor, Satna Master Plan, Near Overbridge, Satna, Madhya Pradesh-485001 PAN:BWDPS3622L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Bardia, FCA Revenue by: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 3.04.2024, dismissing the appeal of the assessee that was filed against the order of the ITO, Ward-2, Stana dated 9.12.2019. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. That the CIT (A) order is bad in law, facts void ab initio and without jurisdiction.

2. That the Ld CIT Appeals failed to appreciate that the sale of shares was for a consideration of Rs 6,15,550 whereas addition made for Rs 24,25,650/- by mistake. The assessee made submission against ground No.2 regarding clerical mistake and also informed for rectification application filed on filed has been rejected.

3. That the Ld CIT Appeals erred in sustaining addition for Rs 24,25,650 u/s 68 against sale of shares claimed as exmpet u/s 10(38).

4. That The Ld CIT Appeals erred in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE against addition made u/s 68 for AY 2012-13.

5. That the Ld CIT Appeals erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 1,23,263/- against alleged commission payment for transaction in shares. 1

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →