ACIT v. Som Nath Maini

100 TTJ 917Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#6021 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 22Section 23Section 263Section 43CASection 68

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus long term capital gainbogus ltcgcircle ratedemergercolourable devicepreponderance of probabilitypenny stocksection 10(38)amalgamationentry operatorlong term capital gains

Judgments citing ACIT v. Som Nath Maini

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

…receipts as other source\nincome of the assessee from unexplained cash credits u/s 68. Similar findings\nwere made by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Arvind M Kariya Vs ACIT (ITA No.\n7024/Mum/2010). Reliance is also placed in the case of Somnath Mani Vs ITO\n(100 TTJ 917), wherein the Chandigarh bench of ITAT held that if facts and\ncircumstances so warrant that it does not accord with the test of human\nprobabilities, transactions have to be held to be non-genuine. In this context\nHon'ble High Courts of Madras and Calcutta has observed in the cases of\nMangilal Jain Vs ITO (Mad) 315 ITR 105 & CIT Vs Precision F…

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mazhar Akram, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the Apex court in the case of Durga Prasad More Vs CIT wherein the principle of human probabilities was relied upon by the court in deciding the case in favour of revenue. The AO should have relied on the ratio of judgment in the case of Somnath Mani Vs ITO (100 TTJ 917) wherein the Chandigarh bench of ITAT held that if facts and circumstances so warrant that it does not accord with the test of human probabilities, transactions have to be held to be non-genuine. (x) As per provisions 43CA of the I. T. Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 (w.e.f. A.Y. 2014-15) which provides that in case of transfer of…

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: \nDr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

…has taken bogus entry of LTCG the guiding Supreme\nCourt Judgments are as under:\n(i) Sumati Dayal V. CIT\n(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)\n(ii) Durga Prasad More\n82 ITR 540 (SC)\n(iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd\n154 ITR 148 (SC)\n(iv) Asst. CIT V. Som Nath Mani\n(2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd)\n(v) Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT\n(1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC)\n(vi) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs V. CIT\n(1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC)\n(vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT\n(1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC)\n(viii) CIT V. Biju Patnaik\n(1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC)\n(ix) CIT v. P. Mohanakala & Others\n(2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)\n2.40 The Ld. AO has recorded as under in th…

HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…i Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [214] ITR 801 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC). Further the ld. AO should have relied on the judgment of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Som Nath Maini vs. Income Tax Officer 100 TTJ 917, wherein the Hon’ble ITAT had held that if the facts and circumstances show that the transactions do not accord with the test of human probabilities, they have to be held to be non-genuine. Accordingly, the assessee was issued a show cause notice containing all the aforesaid material. The ld. PCIT records that the assessee did not file a written…

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

ITA 252/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…O is wholly distinguishable on facts, and is not applicable to reach an adverse finding in the case on hand and has been erroneously applied and relied on by the AO. 1.13 The AO has further relied on the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Som Nath Maini [(2006) 100 TTJ 917 Chd.]. The decision in this case was again rendered in the light of its peculiar facts and circumstances. The facts briefly stated are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee had incurred a long-term capital loss on account of sale of gold jewelry declared under the VDIS, 1997, amounting to Rs. 19,87,705/-…

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

ITA 246/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…O is wholly distinguishable on facts, and is not applicable to reach an adverse finding in the case on hand and has been erroneously applied and relied on by the AO. 1.13 The AO has further relied on the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Som Nath Maini [(2006) 100 TTJ 917 Chd.]. The decision in this case was again rendered in the light of its peculiar facts and circumstances. The facts briefly stated are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee had incurred a long-term capital loss on account of sale of gold jewelry declared under the VDIS, 1997, amounting to Rs. 19,87,705/-…

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 245/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…O is wholly distinguishable on facts, and is not applicable to reach an adverse finding in the case on hand and has been erroneously applied and relied on by the AO. 1.13 The AO has further relied on the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Som Nath Maini [(2006) 100 TTJ 917 Chd.]. The decision in this case was again rendered in the light of its peculiar facts and circumstances. The facts briefly stated are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee had incurred a long-term capital loss on account of sale of gold jewelry declared under the VDIS, 1997, amounting to Rs. 19,87,705/-…

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

ITA 3380/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…ale receipts as other source income of the assessee from unexplained cash credits u/s 68. Similar findings were made by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Arvind M Kariya Vs ACIT (ITA no. 7024/Mum/2010). Reliance is also placed in the case of Somnath Mani Vs ITO (100 TTJ 917) wherein the Chandigarh bench of ITAT held that if facts and circumstances so warrant that it does not accord with the test of human probabilities, transactions have to be held to be non- genuine. 24. In this connection, reliance is also placed on the decision of IRAT Bombay Bench 'B' (ITA No.614/Bom/87 A.Y. 1983-84) in the case of M/s. Mont Blan…

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 909/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…purchase and sale of LTCG are not genuine and has taken bogus entry of LTCG. (i) Sumati Dayal a. CIT· (I 995) 2 J.1 JTH 801 (S C); (ii) Durga Prasad More - 82ITR 540 (SC) (iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. - 154 ITR 148 (SC), (iv) Asst. CIT u. Sam Nath Mani . (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Gooinda Rajulu Mudal.iar a. CIT· (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & othrs. o. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) . (vi) (vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif u. CIT (1963) 50 ITR l(SC) viii) CIT vs. Biju Patnaik - (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) (ix) CIT v. P. Mohanakala &Others - (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Page 7 of 21 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment ye…

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/IND/2020[150-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…purchase and sale of LTCG are not genuine and has taken bogus entry of LTCG. (i) Sumati Dayal a. CIT· (I 995) 2 J.1 JTH 801 (S C); (ii) Durga Prasad More - 82ITR 540 (SC) (iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. - 154 ITR 148 (SC), (iv) Asst. CIT u. Sam Nath Mani . (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Gooinda Rajulu Mudal.iar a. CIT· (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & othrs. o. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) . (vi) (vii) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif u. CIT (1963) 50 ITR l(SC) viii) CIT vs. Biju Patnaik - (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) (ix) CIT v. P. Mohanakala &Others - (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Page 7 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment ye…

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…the case of Harsh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005). He also mentioned the following case laws : • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) • Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) • Mc.Dowell & Co. Limited (154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jai Vs. Pr. CIT. Fina…

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…the case of Harsh Win Chadha Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Del/2005). He also mentioned the following case laws : • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) • Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) • Mc.Dowell & Co. Limited (154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jai Vs. Pr. CIT. Fina…

SRI UDIT KUMAR DUGAR ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…172 ITR 250, viii) M/s. Mont Blane Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. , ITA No. 614/Bom/1987, ix) Wi Chadha Vs. CIT (IT) in ITA No. 3088 & 3107/Del/2005 x) Usha Chandresh Shah Vs. ITO, ITAT Mumbai dated 26.08.2014 for AY 2006-07 xi) Somnath Maini Vs. ITO (226 100 TTJ 917, xii) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. Pr. CIT dated 10.04.2017 (Bom.) And therefore does not want us to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A). 13. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid judicial precedents and other case laws cited before us by both the parties, in order to appreciate the legal ground raised before us, we need to look into t…

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

…. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Navin Kr. Kajaria & Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria Vs. ACIT Cir-35/36 Kol Page 10 [ Unquote] 10.Reliance is also placed in the case of Somnath Maini Vs ITO (226) 100 TTJ 917 wherein the Hon'ble Chandigarh bench of !TAT held that if facts and circumstances so warrant that it does not accord with the test of human probabilities, transactions have to be held to be non-genuine. [ Quote] 3. The relevant facts briefly stated are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee had incurred a…

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

…. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Navin Kr. Kajaria & Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria Vs. ACIT Cir-35/36 Kol Page 10 [ Unquote] 10.Reliance is also placed in the case of Somnath Maini Vs ITO (226) 100 TTJ 917 wherein the Hon'ble Chandigarh bench of !TAT held that if facts and circumstances so warrant that it does not accord with the test of human probabilities, transactions have to be held to be non-genuine. [ Quote] 3. The relevant facts briefly stated are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee had incurred a…

EMSON TOOLS MFG CORP LTD,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaemson Tools Mfg. Corpn. Ltd., Vs. The D.C.I.T.,(Cc-I), D-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaace3698M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjit GargFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…he premium of Rs. 490 per share seems quite unreasonable and needs to be investigated. Based on the returns, the growth of the company does not justify such high premium. The Hon'ble Courts have frowned upon such modus operandi. In the case of Som Nath Maini, 100 TTJ 917 the Hon'ble ITAT has observed that a worthless company cannot fetch a high price of Rs.55/share even though the payments are through banking channel and also the transaction is through a stock exchange. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Das More, 82 ITR 540(SC). It may be noted th…

DCIT,1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. SMT VIMLESH KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 21/BIL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Shital Verma, DR
Section 10(38)

…of the case clearly shows that the assessee has manipulated the accommodation entries of Long term capital gains against his own undisclosed income. He has relied upon the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Som Nath Maini 100 TTJ 917 (Chd.) 4. On the other hand, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the transaction of purchase is duly supported by the documentary evidence. He has referred the bills issued by Prince Securities in respect of the purchase of shares of Blue Chip India Ltd., at pages 72 to 77 of the paper-book. The payment was partly made through cash vid…

LATE ROSHAN RAJA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MRS. FARIDA RAJA MARKER,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3803/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainlate Mrs. Roshan Raja Income Tax Officer 19(3)(2) (Through L/H Mrs. Farida R. Marker) Bandra Kurla Complex C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Cas Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai 297 Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400007 Pan - Aadpr1741G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r A.Y. 2004-05 while concluding the assessment for A.Y. 2005-06, the year under consideration, on 31.12.2007 or thereafter till 31.03.2011, which he has not done. 3.4.4 We also find that the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of Somnath Mani (100 TTJ 917) relied on by the AO is factually different and not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. In that case, the facts were that the sale proceeds of the shares sold were not reported on the transaction date at the concerned Stock Exchange. Further, the said shares continued to appear in the name of that assessee for quite a long period afte…

FARRAH MARKER,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3801/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainms. Farrah Marker Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Cas Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. 297 Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion Bandra (E), Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400007 Pan - Aaepf3167B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r A.Y. 2004-05 while concluding the assessment for A.Y. 2005-06, the year under consideration, on 31.12.2007 or thereafter till 31.03.2011, which he has not done. 3.4.4 We also find that the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of Somnath Mani (100 TTJ 917) relied on by the AO is factually different and not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. In that case, the facts were that the sale proceeds of the shares sold were not reported on the transaction date at the concerned Stock Exchange. Further, the said shares continued to appear in the name of that assessee for quite a long period afte…