CIT v. Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He

463 ITR 711High Court2024#10904 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 151Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

bogus long term capital gainsection 151(1)material facts necessary for assessmentbogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)kelvinatorlive linkmere change of opinionborrowed satisfactionamalgamationentry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

…in DEMAT account where shares remained for more than one year, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on stock exchange, there was no reason to add capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68. Pr. CIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF (2024) 463 ITR 711 (Bom). 2) Where assessee purchased shares of a company when trading of said company was suspended and sold same and claimed exemption under section 10(38), in absence of any material brought on record to suggest that purchase and sale of said shares was bogus, Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of sale proceeds of shares unde…

NEELAM SANJAY MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 5859/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) A N D Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Smt. Neelam Sanjay Mehta Ito, Ward 19(2)(4), 2/78-80, Gora Gandhi Building, C.P. Mumbai/ Nfac, Delhi Tank Road Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Pan : Ayzpm8574E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :- This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.9.2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi (In Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Being An Individual Deriving Income From Salary, House Property, Capital Gain & Other Sources Had Declared Her Total Income At Rs. 4,63,750/- By Filing Her Return Of Income On Dated 1.9.2015 For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. Subsequently, Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, With The Reason That The Assessee Is One Of The Beneficiaries, Who Has Made Sale Of Shares, Wherein Trading Quantity Is Higher Than ‘Buy Trades Quantity’ Of The Scrip M/S. Toyam Industries Ltd. To The Tune Of Rs. 1,99,12,777/- & Accordingly, Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. In Response To Which, The Assessee Filed Relevant Details & The Documents, Such As Purchase Documents, Sale Contract Note, Bank Statement Etc. Qua Purchase & Sale Of Shares Of Scrip Namely M/S. Toyam Industries Ltd. .

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 155BSection 250Section 68

…nces as involved in this case and thus on this count also, the addition of liable to be deleted. 12. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Indravadan Jain, HUF [2023] 156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay)/[2024] 463 ITR 711 (Bombay)[12-07- 2023], has also dealt with identical issue and has held as under:- “1. This appeal is impugning an order dated 27th May 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejecting two appeals that Revenue had filed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT[A]) for Assessment Year 2005-06 in the matter o…

HEMLATA PARESH SURANA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5770/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Hemlata Paresh Surana I.T.O. Ward 19(1)(1), 4-A, 30-B, Taj Building, A. K. Mumbai Marg, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai Vs. – 400 036. Pan/Gir No. Abeps6199P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. M. Jain Respondent By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 48, Mumbai (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Has Sold 20,500 Shares Of Ammltd/Apu Marketing/Eject Marketing On A Total Consideration Of Rs. 14,92,810/- On Dated 01.02.2018 Through Online Platform/Bombay Exchange & Therefore Has Earned Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 12,87,180/- & Claimed The Same As Exempt U/S. 10(38) Of The Act. Hemlata Paresh Surana

For Appellant: Shri R. M. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, SR. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM Hemlata Paresh Surana I.T.O. Ward 19(1)(1), 4-A, 30-B, Taj Building, A. K. Mumbai Marg, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai Vs. – 400 036. PAN/GIR No. ABEPS6199P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R. M. Jain Respondent by : Shri Sandeep Jumale, SR. DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.07.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 48, Mumbai (…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MEGHA GARG, DELHI

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

ITA 3488/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Income Tax Officer, Megha Garg, 1707 E-2 Block Civic Centre, 160 Saraswati Vihar Vaishali, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Aecpg7098C Appellant Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69A

…price of script of SNCFL, addition on account of LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee]" 14. In another case of Pr. CIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF [2023] 156 taxmann.com 605/[2024] 463 ITR 711 (Bombay), the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- "Section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain JASPREET (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny Stock…

HETAL DAXESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. A. C. OF INCOME TAX 19 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.176/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Hetal Daxesh Shah Vs. The Assistant 604, 6th Floor, Commissioner of Deccan Vikas, Income Tax-19(1), V.P.Road, Piramal Chambers, Khotachiwadi, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400012. PAN: ARWPS1310C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri. Sanjay Parikh Respondent by Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.05.2025 ORDER Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M.: The present appea…

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 183/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…rmulated by revenue was more on facts rather than on law and it could not be said to be substantial question of law - Held, yes - Whether appeal filed by revenue deserved to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange and not from broker, payment was made through banki…

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…rmulated by revenue was more on facts rather than on law and it could not be said to be substantial question of law - Held, yes - Whether appeal filed by revenue deserved to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange and not from broker, payment was made through banki…

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…rmulated by revenue was more on facts rather than on law and it could not be said to be substantial question of law - Held, yes - Whether appeal filed by revenue deserved to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange and not from broker, payment was made through banki…

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…rmulated by revenue was more on facts rather than on law and it could not be said to be substantial question of law - Held, yes - Whether appeal filed by revenue deserved to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange and not from broker, payment was made through banki…

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…rmulated by revenue was more on facts rather than on law and it could not be said to be substantial question of law - Held, yes - Whether appeal filed by revenue deserved to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9]” iv) CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) Bombay He 463 ITR 711 “Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny stock and thus, he made an addition of same under sect ion 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange and not from broker, payment was made through banki…