330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava v. ACIT

177 ITD 127Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#15171 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 10(38)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 285BA(1)Section 41(1)

Issues it is cited on

onus of proofbogus long term capital gainpenny stocksection 10(38)live linkamalgamationtangible materialaddition u/s 68accommodation entrylong term capital gainsection 10genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava v. ACIT

AJAY KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ereunder: [a] Sanjay Kaul v. PCIT [2020] 427 ITR 63 [Delhi] [b] Suman Poddar v. ITO [2019] 268 Taxmann 320 [SC] [c] Satish Kishore v. ITO [2019] 179 ITD 333 [Delhi) [d] Sandeep Bhargava v. ACIT [2019] 109 taxmann.com 174 [Delhi] [e] Pooja Ajmani v. ITO [2019] 177 ITD 127 [Delhi] [f] Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. ITO [2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 [Bombay] [g] M. K. Rajeshwari v. ITO [2018] 99 taxmann.com 339 [Bangalore] 11. In the backdrop of these legal propositions, it remains a fact that the Assessing Officer has failed to take into account the factual matrix and has not conducted any kind of independent verification…

DCIT, CC-1, KANPUR vs. SHRI ABHISHEK SARAF, GORAKHPUR

ITA 93/LKW/2021[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 69A

…surrounding circumstances and\npreponderance of probabilities of human behaviour. Reliance is placed\non decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Pooja Ajmani v.\nIncome-tax Officer, Ward 20(4), New Delhi [2019] 106\ntaxmann.com 65 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2019] 177 ITD 127 (Delhi -\nTrib.). where it was held that \"Every person is entitled to so\narrange his affairs as to avoid taxation but the arrangement-\nmust be real and genuine and not a sham or make believe...\nKeeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, it is opined that\ndocuments submitted as evidences to prove the genuineness\nof transaction are themsel…

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2042/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejitendra Udaylal Jain V. National Faceless Assessment Centre(Nfac) C/O. M/S. Alankar Jewellers Shop Delhi No.1 Municipal Building R.A. Kidwai Road, Wadala Mumbai- 400037 Pan: Aabpj5480E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jitendra Udaylal Jain v. National Faceless Assessment Centre(NFAC) C/o. M/s. Alankar Jewellers Shop Delhi No.1 Municipal Building R.A. Kidwai Road, Wadala Mumbai- 400037 PAN: AABPJ5480E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Department Represented by : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan Date of conclusion of Hearing : 11.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is…

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

ITA 217/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 68

…ge 7 of 17 1. Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) 2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee failed to establish the genuineness of rise of price of the shares within a short period of time then the AO has reached a reasonable conclusion in treating the transactions as bogus and capital gain is as a result…

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

ITA 216/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 68

…ge 7 of 17 1. Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) 2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee failed to establish the genuineness of rise of price of the shares within a short period of time then the AO has reached a reasonable conclusion in treating the transactions as bogus and capital gain is as a result…

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

ITA 215/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 68

…ge 7 of 17 1. Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) 2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee failed to establish the genuineness of rise of price of the shares within a short period of time then the AO has reached a reasonable conclusion in treating the transactions as bogus and capital gain is as a result…

330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava v. ACIT (177 ITD 127) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax