Chandan Gupta v. CIT

ABHISHEK TEJRAJ DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleabhishek Tejraj Doshi V. Income Tax Officer 259, 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion Jurisdiction Circle 19(1), Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai, Mumbai Mumbai 400002 Pan: Aegpd9279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anil Sathe Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

…share transactions profits credited in his bank accounts, then sale proceeds had to be added as income of assessee under section 68 Balbir Chand Maini vs CIT [20111 12 taxmann.com 276 (Punjab & Haryand) [2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & Haryana) (MAG.) / [2012] 340 ITR 161 (Punjab & 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana) Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - Assessment year 1998-99 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company at rate between Rs. 2.50 and Rs. 3.40 per share in month of April, 1997 and part of those shares were s…

SANJAY MADANRAJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 32(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Ssanjay Madanrajshah, Acit – 32(3) 316, New Link Way Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate, Near Chincholi Bkc Complex, Vs. Fire Brigade, Bandra (E), Malad (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajcps1858H (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

…he Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain vs. CIT (2017) ITA.No.18 of 2017 – Bombay High Court – Nagpur Bench. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 229 Taxman 173 ( P& H) Balbir Chand Maini vs. CIT (2012) 340 ITR 161 (P & H) Usha Chandresh Shah vs. ITO 2014-TIOL-1459- ITAT- Mumbai. Ratnakar M. Pujari vs. ITO 2016-TIOL-1746-ITAT-MUM. Abhimanyu Soin vs. ACIT 2018-TIOL-733-ITAT-CHD. Arvind M. Kariya vs. ACIT ITA.No.7024/Mum/2010. ITO vs. Shamim M. Bharwani (2016) 69 taxmann.com 65 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available…

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

The appeal stands dismissed

…tment have been distinguished in the above decision as under:- • Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT (89 Taxman.com 196) • Shri Abhimanyu Soin vs. ACIT (2018-TIOL-733-ITAT-CHD dated 18.4.2018) • Chandan Gupta Vs. CIT (229 Taxman 173) • Balbir Chand Maini Vs. CIT (340 ITR 161) 29. Learned Counsel of the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer has made addition which has been confirmed by learned CIT(A) merely on the surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In this regard learned Counsel of the assessee submits following decisions as under :- “a. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. C…

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

The appeal stands dismissed

…tment have been distinguished in the above decision as under:- • Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT (89 Taxman.com 196) • Shri Abhimanyu Soin vs. ACIT (2018-TIOL-733-ITAT-CHD dated 18.4.2018) • Chandan Gupta Vs. CIT (229 Taxman 173) • Balbir Chand Maini Vs. CIT (340 ITR 161) 29. Learned Counsel of the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer has made addition which has been confirmed by learned CIT(A) merely on the surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In this regard learned Counsel of the assessee submits following decisions as under :- “a. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. C…