2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT v. Jamnadevi Agrawal)

31 ITR 294High Court1957#7561 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 10(38)Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act Section 131 Section 131 of Income Tax Act Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

colourable device penny stock long term capital gains accommodation entry long term capital gain genuineness of the transaction undisclosed income section 68 previous year transfer person company

Judgments citing 2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT v. Jamnadevi Agrawal)

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Gyan Prakash Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(4), B-189, Yojna Vihar, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi – 92 (Pan: Adupg2697N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

…followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of low. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal), (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishon Versus CIT), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus CIT) and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT Versus Smt. Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand." In the case of Udit Kalra vs. ITO|2019 (4) TMI 834 - Delhi High Cou…

SHAH SANDEEP ANANTKUMAR HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO-32(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4628/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4628/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shah Sandeep Anantkumar HUF, 401/402, Aura Biplex Habitat, S.V.Road, …………………Appellant Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. PAN –AALHS5130C v/s ITO-32(3)(4), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kothari Revenue by : Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 29/07/2024 Date of Order – 06/08/2024 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the im…

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

…followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal), (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishan Versus CIT), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus CIT) and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT Versus Smt. Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand." Further The H'ble Chennai Tribunal on a similar penny stock case Of…

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 78/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10(38)Section 56

…id findings, the authorities have followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The judgments reported in CIT Vs. Jamnadevi Agrawal [2012] 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay HC), PuranmalRadhakishan& Co. Vs. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 294 (Bombay HC), Raja Bahadur KamakhyaNarain Singh Vs. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT Vs. Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah [2015] 62 taxmann.com 325/235 Taxman 1 (Bombay HC) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand". Further the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sa…

SMT. PARAMADEVI TEKRIWAL, ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1999/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal), (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishan Versus CIT), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus CIT) and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT Versus Smt. Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the appe…

ALPA UDAYKUMAR SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Darshan GandhiFor Respondent: 08/06/2022

Section 10(38)Section 131(1)Section 68

…followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal), (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishan Versus CIT), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus CIT) and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT(A) Versus Smt.Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the ap…

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)

…said findings, the authorities have followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The judgments reported in CIT Vs. Jamnadevi Agrawal [20121 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay HO. Puranmal Radhakishan& Co. Vs. Crni9571 31 ITR 294 (Bombay HC). Raja Bahadur KamakhyaNarain Singh Vs. CITH9701 77 ITR 253 ISO and CIT Vs. Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah 120151 62 taxmann.com 325/235 Taxman 1 (Bombay HC) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand". Further the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay…

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. SUMER BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan

Section 36(1)(iii)

…appeal by the Revenue. The Tribunal is not empowered to render even a finding adverse to the assessee on issues decided in his favour by the Ld.CIT(A) unless an appeal is preferred by the Revenue against such a finding as held in Puranmal Radhakishan v. CIT [31 ITR 294 (Bombay)], New India Assurance Co. v. CIT [31 ITR 844 (Bombay)]. We also find force in the argument of the Ld. AR that any remand at the present stage would amount to rendering an adverse finding against the assessee without any 22 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders appeal from the Revenue which is also impermissible as…

SUMER BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan

Section 36(1)(iii)

SHRI RAMACHANDRAN ANANTHAN POTHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1088/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood (JM) I.T.A. No. 1088/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Ramchandran ACIT – 24(3) Vs. Ananthan Pothi Room No. 413 513, Laxmi Plaza 6th Floor Laxmi Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers Andheri West Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai- 400 053. Mumbai-400 012. PAN : AACPP8620K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Naresh Jain & Ms. Arati Debnath Department by Shri D.G. Pansari Date of Hearing 18.6.2019 Date of Pronouncement 11.9.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against…

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1255/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman. Com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal) (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishan Versus en), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus ern, (1970) 77 ITR 253 (se) (Raja Bahadur Vers Cl'I] and (2015 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) [Cl T Versus Smt. Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since no substantial…

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1254/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman. Com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal) (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishan Versus en), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus ern, (1970) 77 ITR 253 (se) (Raja Bahadur Vers Cl'I] and (2015 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) [Cl T Versus Smt. Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since no substantial…

SRI SUBRATA BANERJEE ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1) , KOLKATA

ITA 2275/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 259 (Bombay)(CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agarwal), (1957) 31 ITR 294(Bombay) (uranmal Radhakrishan versus CIT), (1970)77ITR 253 (SC)(Raja Bahadur Versus CIT and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT versus Smt Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the appeal is…

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

ITA 1496/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 259 (Bombay)(CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agarwal), (1957) 31 ITR 294(Bombay) (uranmal Radhakrishan versus CIT), (1970)77ITR 253 (SC)(Raja Bahadur Versus CIT and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT versus Smt Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the appeal is…

ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TRIBUTE TRADING AND FINANCE LTD.,, KOLKATA

ITA 1495/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…followed the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 259 (Bombay)(CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agarwal), (1957) 31 ITR 294(Bombay) (uranmal Radhakrishan versus CIT), (1970)77ITR 253 (SC)(Raja Bahadur Versus CIT and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT versus Smt Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the appeal is…