CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

328 ITR 656High Court2010#380 most cited

What is CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal authority for?

Off-market share transactions alone do not deem a transaction sham; revenue authorities must consider all facts, such as fair market value of shares and utilization of banking channels, to prove it bogus. This principle is often applied to claims of long-term capital gains from share sales, including those involving alleged penny stocks.

230

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal · 328 ITR 656 · Section 10(38) · Section 68 · off-market transaction · sham transaction · bogus long term capital gain · penny stock · genuineness of share transactions · banking channels · fair market value · accommodation entry

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 529

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 147Section 131Section 148Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus long term capital gainbogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)period of holdingpreponderance of probabilitylong term capital gainsentry operatorcolourable devicelong term capital gainaccommodation entry

Judgments citing CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 239/NAG/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…esentative has also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Sumati Dayal reported as 214 ITR 801 (SC). The aforesaid decision has also been considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal, reported as 328 ITR 656 (Bom.) while considering provisions of section 68 on sale of shares. The extract of aforesaid judgement has been reproduced in this order at Para–11. In the judgement at Para–15, the 18 Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has concluded that decision relied upon by the counsel is distinguishable on facts. In view of above factual position, there rem…

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 220/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…esentative has also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Sumati Dayal reported as 214 ITR 801 (SC). The aforesaid decision has also been considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal, reported as 328 ITR 656 (Bom.) while considering provisions of section 68 on sale of shares. The extract of aforesaid judgement has been reproduced in this order at Para–11. In the judgement at Para–15, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has concluded that decision relied upon by the counsel is distinguishable on facts. In view of above factual position, there remain…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TEJPRAKASH SOHAN LAL DANGI, MUMBAI

ITA 7624/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7624/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Mumbai vs Tejprakash Sohan Lal Dangi 203 Mahaver Building, 44/46 Popat Wadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 (PAN: AEEPD3015Q) Appellant Respondent Present for: Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala and Shri Saiprasad Ghosh, CAs Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by th…

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

ITA 44/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “NAGPUR” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Rajesh Sarda, ACIT, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [PAN: AHAPS4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT–DR Date of hearing 16.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee…

INNOVATE DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 31/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member ITA No: 31/Ahd/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Innovate Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. The ITO, 2nd Floor, Devashish, 39, Ward-2(1)(1), Sardar Patel Nagar, Vs Ahmedabad Nr. Hotel Nest, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006 Gujarat PAN: AABCI4706M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. & Shri Samir Vora, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 18-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 24-02-2026 आदेश/ORDER…

DCIT (CC)-8(4), MUMBAI vs. REENA RATNESH JAIN , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3888/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit(Cc)-8(4) Reena Ratnesh Jain Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Nirmal Nagar, Near D-Mart, Mumbai-400 020 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aeapj 6605 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bhadresh Doshi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department, Against Order Dated 26.03.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Department Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, The Dispute In Short Is In Relation To Deletion Of Addition Made Of Rs.80,23,019/-, Being Bogus Long Term Capital Gain (‘Ltcg’ For Short) Added U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) & Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.80,230/-, Being Commission Paid By The Assessee For Arranging The Accommodation Entry Of Bogus Ltcg.

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT(CC)-8(4) Reena Ratnesh Jain Room No. 659, 6th Floor, 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Nirmal Nagar, Near D-Mart, Mumbai-400 020 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 PAN/GIR No. AEAPJ 6605 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bhadresh Doshi Respondent by : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR) Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the department,…

JAY HANSRAJ CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2656/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Prabhash Shankar, Am Mr. Jay Hansraj Chheda Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(1) Room No. 61, 4Th Floor, Vasant Villa, Matru Mandir, Room No. 221, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Ajlpc9910H (Assessee) (Respondent) : Income Tax Officer Jay Hansraj Chheda Room No. 61, 4Th Floor, Vasant Room No. 502, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Vs. Villa, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Ajlpc9910H (Assessee) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Manoj Pandit
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM Mr. Jay Hansraj Chheda Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(1) Room No. 61, 4th Floor, Vasant Villa, Matru Mandir, Room No. 221, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai – 400006. PAN/GIR No. AJLPC9910H (Assessee) (Respondent) : Income Tax Officer Jay Hansraj Chheda Room No. 61, 4th Floor, Vasant Room No. 502, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Vs. Villa, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Mumbai – 400006. PAN/GIR No. AJLPC9910H (Assessee) : (Respondent)…

ARVIND BHAGUJI KANGANE,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-27(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 of appeal are

ITA 4158/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Arvind Bhanguji Kangane Dcit, Circle – 27(1), Mumbai Shreyas Building, 11Th Road, Plot No. 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Vs 553, Flat No. 901, 9Th Floor, Opp. Railway Station Building, Navi Heritage Pride Building, Chembur, Mumbai – 400703. Mumbai – 400026. [Pan: Afypk1856R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 68

…Taxmann.com 176 (Guj-HC)  PCIT-31 vs Indravadan Jain HUF ITA No. 454 of 2018 (Bom-HC)  PCIT-3 vs Ziauddin A Siddique ITA No. 2012 of 2017 (Bom-HC)  CIT vs Shyam R. Pawar 54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom-HC) 7 Arvind Bhaguji Kangane  CIT vs Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal 20 Taxmann.com 529 (Bom-HC)  PCIT vs Smt. Krishna Devi 126 Taxmann.com 80 (Delhi-HC)  PCIT vs Sanjaykumar Damjibhai Gangani 178 taxmann.com 276 (Gujarat) 8. On the validity of reassessment order, the assessee relied upon the following decision:  Nabiul Industrial Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (NFAC), Delhi ITA No. 1328/Kol/2024 (Kol-ITAT)  Md. Mahimud SK vs ITA…

SUDHEER CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 23(3)(7), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5263/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan & Mr. RaviFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…CIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar [130 taxmann.com 177 (SC)] • PCIT vs. Indravadan Jain (HUF) [2023] 156 taxmann.com 605 • CIT vs. Shyam R. Pawar [2015] 54 taxmann.com 108 • PCIT vs. Ziauddin A. Siddique (ITXA No. 2012 of 2017) • CIT vs. Jamna Devi Agarwal [328 ITR 656] • PCIT vs. Prem Pal Gandhi [2018] 401 ITR 253 • Farzad Sheriar Jehani vs. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 9 • DCIT vs. Pavankumar Bachhraj Chandan [2024] 161 taxmann.com 674 • Mahendra Parekh vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1566/Mum/2023) • Uttam Jain (HUF) vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2427/Mum/2023) • Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3429/Mum/2019) • Ramprasa…

CHINTAN HARSHAD KANAKIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhsmt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Chintan Harshad Kanakia, Ito Ward 42 (1)(1) Room No. 103, Sacovar Apt., Sagar Complex, 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (W), Bkc, Mumbai -400051 Mumbai Pan – Agnpk6023E

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…tance of transaction of long term capital gain, except the date of purchase of shares. The Ld. AR of assessee submits that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Jamna Devi Aggarwal 9 ITA No. 2822 /Mum/2025 (AY 2015-16) Chintan Harshad Kanakia (2010) 328 ITR 656 (Bombay) held that once period of holding exceed 12 months and shares were sold through exchange with STT paid, exemption under Section 10(38) must follow. Similarly, Punjab & Haryana High Court in PCIT Vs. Prem Pal Gandhi (2018) 403 ITR 552 (P&H) also held that suspicions about timing of purchase cannot override documentary evidence providi…

SHRI HARESHKUMAR MAFATLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 5439/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshri Hareshkumar Mafatlal Vs Acit 19(1), Mumbai Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Matru Shah, 18/9, 1St Floor, Hariharwala Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Building, 10/11, S.V.P. Road, 400007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Anqps5958J Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal a/w Shri Om KhandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Hareshkumar Mafatlal vs ACIT 19(1), Mumbai Room No. 203, 2nd Floor, Matru Shah, 18/9, 1st Floor, Hariharwala Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Building, 10/11, S.V.P. Road, 400007 Mumbai-400 004 PAN: ANQPS5958J APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K Gopal a/w Shri Om Khandalkar Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of hearing : 19/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 04/12/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Anikesh Banerjee, JM: Instant appeal of the assesse…

YASHWANT RAJ LALCHAND BAMBOLI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-27(3)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4373/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankaryashwant Raj Lalchand V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Bamboli बनाम 27(3)(5), 4Th Floor, Tower 7, Trimurti Building, 105-A, No. 6, Vashi Station N.G. Acharaya Marg, Complex, Mumbai –400703, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aijpb5149A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala,ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr.DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…hares of SCIL has been decided in favour of the assessee by various ITATs including Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT Mumbai. Also, Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee in the cases (a)ITO vs Jamnadevi Agarwal 328 ITR 656 (Bom) (b) CIT vs Shyam R. Pawar 229 Taxman256 (Bom). 4.1 The ld.CIT(A) however, upheld the action of the AO with the observations that on identical facts, Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta had decided the issue in favour of the Revenue in the case of PCIT Vs Swati Bajaj (Calcutta High Court) Appeal Number: IA No. GA/2/2022, dated 14/06/2022.Hon’ble…

NARENDRA SHANTILAL BAPNA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-28(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4198/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Shantilal Bapna V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.DR)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL”B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Narendra Shantilal Bapna v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ACLPB8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing 30.09.20…

SALONI GIRRAJKISHOR AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3234/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarsaloni Girrajkishor Agrawal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1601/1602, Green Acre, बनाम –25(1)(1),Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri Bandra Kurla Complex, (West), Mumbai – 400 053, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anupa1692D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Saloni Girrajkishor Agrawal v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1601/1602, Green Acre, बनाम –25(1)(1),Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri Bandra Kurla Complex, (West), Mumbai – 400 053, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ANUPA1692D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date of Pr…

SURESH MAHESHWARI,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3370/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Ssuresh Maheshwari, The Dcit, 3Rd Floor, 16, New Silk Bazar, Circle 19(3) Vs. Gandhi Mansion, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400002 Parel, Mumbai 400012 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm 4397R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Suresh Maheshwari, The DCIT, 3rd Floor, 16, New Silk Bazar, Circle 19(3) Vs. Gandhi Mansion, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400002 Parel, Mumbai 400012 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAFPM 4397R Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 25.03.2025 passed by Nat…

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

…address of vendors, etc and that the ld. AO was at liberty to have conducted at his own independent enquiries. On the issue of off market transactions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jamuna Devi Agarwal 328 ITR 656 stating that Off market transaction alone would not deem a transaction as sham transaction. The Revenue Authorities are purchased, utilization of banking channels, etc. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further argued that the shares were held in the Demat account for more than 12 months. In support, the ld. AR referred to the decision of Hon’…

ANJALI GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -1(2), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3605/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Ms. Anjali Gupta, Ito, Ward-1(2), A-84, Summit, Dlf City-5, Gurgaon, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Vs Haryana Pan-Aaipg5132F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…Tribunal in case of Rachna Gupta in ITA No.5418/Del/2018 dated 20.12.2024, in the case of Archit Gupta in ITA No.2624-2625/Del/2018 dated 06.11.2024 etc. 6. On the issue of off market transactions, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jamuna Devi Agarwal 328 ITR 656 observed that Off market transaction alone would not deem a transaction as sham transaction. The Revenue Authorities are required to see overall facts of the case like fair market value of shares purchased, utilization of banking channels, etc. 7. We have noted the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kuntala Mahapatra 160 taxmann.com 6…

YOGESHKUMAR PRAVINKUMAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4544/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Om KandalkarFor Respondent: 16.09.2025
Section 10(38)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 4544/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Yogeshkumar Pravinkumar Shah, Asstt. CIT-19(3), 25, harhar Wala Building, S.V.P. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Road, Opp. Moti Talkies, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. PAN: AMZPS6493A Appellant) : Respondent) Assessee / Appellant by : Shri K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar, AR : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, CIT-DR Revenue / Respondent by : 16.09.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assess…

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…ted my stand: (a) CIT vs Mahesh Chandra G. Vakil (2013) 40 Tax mann.com. 325 (Guj) (b) CIT vs Himani M Vakil (2013) 40 Tax mann.com. 326 (Guj) (c) DCIT vs Sunita Khema in ITA nos 718/Kol/2011 (d) Tekchand Rambhiya HUF ITA nos 930/Mim/2012 (e) CIT vs Jamnadevi(328 ITR 656) (f) CIT vs Smt Sumitra Devi ITA 54/2012 (g) CIT vs Udit Narain Agarwal HC (Allahabad) in ITA 560 of 2009 (h) ACIT vs Shri Ravindra Kumar Toshiwal in ITA nos 5302/Mum/2008 The headlines of the decisions were enclosed with reply for the ready reference of assessing officer. 15. That even in case when the shares were not registered/quoted, even the…

PRAVEEN SITARAM AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-24(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3454/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Praveen Sitaram Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agarwal Wd-24(3)(3), Mumbai B-408, Twin Tower Lokhandwala Complex Andheri(W) Mumbai – 400 053 PAN/GIR No.AEAPA5317G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by Shri Virabhadra S Mahajan Date of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the National Faceless Ap…

Showing 1–20 of 230 · Page 1 of 12

...