CIT v. Biju Patnaik

Kantadevi Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

…e binding decisions may be cited: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is as it is only where the STT is chargeable, that an exemption u/s. 10(38) enures. No material has been brought on record by the…

Santlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2)

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

…e binding decisions may be cited: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is as it is only where the STT is chargeable, that an exemption u/s. 10(38) enures. No material has been brought on record by the…

Manish C Jogani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7344/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Manish C. Jogani, Huf Ito-16(2)(2), बनाम/ C/21, Shree Ganeshprasad Chs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Sleater Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 8076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7345/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Sandeep C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalhs 2461 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7346/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Girish C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhg 0062 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Champaklal D. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahj 8938 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : (A.Y. 2008-09) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2015 Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Four Appeals By Different Assessees, Agitating The Dismissal Of Their Appeals Contesting Their Respective Assessments U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 07.2.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Vide His Separate Orders Of Even Date (20.10.2014). The Issue/S Arising Being Common, The Appeals Were Posted For Hearing & Were Accordingly, Heard Together.

…e binding decisions may be cited: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid on the purchase and sale of shares. This is as it is only where the STT is chargeable, that an exemption u/s. 10(38) enures. No material has been brought on record by the…

Iss Hicare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(3), Mumbai

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

…ineness of the creditors in view of the following decision: i) Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT(SC) reported in 107 ITR 938; ii) C.Kant & Co. Vs. CIT(Calcutta) 126 ITR 63; iii) Dhanalakhsmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CIT(AP) 228 ITR 780; (iv) CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 v) Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(Kerala) 229 ITR 548 8.6 In view of the above decisions, the appellant has to prove all the three conditions i.e. identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. As the appellant could only prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions…