CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

328 ITR 656High Court2010#385 most cited

What is CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal authority for?

When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

230

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal · section 10(38) · bogus long term capital gain · penny stock · period of holding · preponderance of probability · long term capital gains · entry operator · colourable device · cash credit · section 68

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

The Dy. CIT-1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Rakesh Saraogi & Soni (HUF), Raipur (Cg)

ITA 93/BIL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

Section 143(3)

…ns on similar facts:- 9. The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. JAMNADEVI AGRAWAL & ORS. HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH dated 23rd September, 2010 reported in (2010) 236 CTR (Bom) 32 : (2010) 328 ITR 656 : (2010) 46 DTR 271wherein it was held that: "The fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of similar companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence was ITA Nos. 93 to 99/RPR/2014 & 10 C.O. Nos. 12 to 18/RPR/2014 . A.Y. 2004-…

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)

…ed the transaction of purchase. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following cases: i. Mukesh R Morolia Vs. ACIT - (2006) 6 SOT 247 ii. Chandrakant Babulal Shah Vs. ITO in ITA No. 6108/Mum/2009 dated 15.12.2010. iii. CIT Vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal 328 ITR 656 He has further submitted that similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in all these decisions. In the case of Jamnadevi Agarwal, the Hon'ble High Court has held that even the statement of stock broker's denial of transaction was proved to be wrong by producing documentary evidence to the effect that the shares sold by the assessee…

Kiran Kothari HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] आयकर अपील सं"या / I.T.A No. 443/Kol/2017 "नधॉरण वषॅ/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kiran Kothari, (HUF) Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-35(3), Kolkata (PAN: AAGHK 9024 E) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Date of Hearing 01.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement 15.11.2017 Shri Miraj D.Shah For the Appellant/ अपीलाथ" Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR For the Respondent/ ""यथ" आदेश/ORDER Per Shri A…

Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1237/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -vs- ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata [PAN: AHMPB 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -vs- ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata [PAN: AEJPB 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 10.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017 ORDER Per M.Balag…

Manish Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1236/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -vs- ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata [PAN: AHMPB 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -vs- ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata [PAN: AEJPB 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 10.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017 ORDER Per M.Balag…

Smt. Narangi Devi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 487/BANG/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh T. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234ASection 234C

…ares, supported by Contract Notes and demat statements and Account Payee Cheques cannot be treated as bogus. f. Tribunal at Mumbai in case of Tekchand Rambhiya HUF in ITA nos 930/Mum/2012 has held that the Hon'ble High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Jamnadevi (328 ITR 656) has observed in paragraphs 11 & 12 as under: "11. We see no merit in the above contentions. The fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of similar companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus/ especially when documentary evidence was produced to establish the ge…

Anjali Pandit, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

ITA 3028/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…nce of his arguments the ld relied on the following decisions :- F) CIT V/s v. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court) (Order dated 7.9.2011) (lTXA No. 456 of 2007) G) Mukesh R. Marolia v. Addl. CIT [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) H) CIT v. Jamnadevi Agrawal [2010]328 ITR 656(Bom) I) ITO v. Mrs. Rasila N. Gada & Others (Mum) (Order dated 8/8/2012) (ITA No.1773/Mum/2010) J) Asstt. CIT v. Pooja Arora (Mum) (Order dated 20.6.2012) (ITA Nos. 2788 & 2790/Mum/2009) K) Asstt. CIT v. L. Jaipal Reddy (Mum) (Order dated 20.l.2012) (ITA Nos. 3607 & 3608/Mum/2009) L) Durqadevi Mundra v. ITO (Mum) (Order dated l.6.2012) (ITA…

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ITO 121 TTJ ITA No. 5954/Mum-2014 13 695 (Kol)(2009), ITO vs. Kusumlata 105 TTJ 265(Jodh)(2006), Km. Saumya Agrawal vs. ITO 174 Taxman 60(Agra)(TM)(2008), CIT vs. Smt. Rajnidevi A. Chowdhary, ITA No. 1333 of 2008( Bom), CIT vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agarwal & Ors. 328 ITR 656(Bom)(2010) and ITO, Ward 3(2), Thane vs. Paresh Gala, ITA No. 3634/M/07. The assessee submits that in the above cases, similar transaction of purchase and sale of shares are discussed. The last decision relied on by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts(P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158(SC). In this case, the return of income fo…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Ziauddin A. Siddique, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5182/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negiita Nos 5182 & 5183/Mum/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Acit Cen Cir. 24 & 26 Shri Ziauddin A Siddique Mumbai. 401, Alice Villa, Vs. Opp Almedia Park, Road No.5, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan Ahlps0554P (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Vidisha Kalra – CIT -DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sanghavi
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…ase of Sumati Dayal [214 ITR 801] and requested us to apply the test of human probability against the assessee. Referring to the impugned order of the CIT(A), the CIT-DR submitted that the jurisdictional High Court judgements in the case of Jamnadevi Agarwal [328 ITR 656] was heavily relied for granting relief to the assessee. In this regard, the CIT-DR is of the opinion that the said judgment only mentioned about the absence of any question of law and there is no finding of fact by the Hon’ble High Court that helps this assessee. Further referring to the penalty order imposed by the SEBI on Basant Periwal & Co.…

Deepak Ashok Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6163/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay KothariFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Patil v/s ACIT, [2015] 55 taxmann.com 346 (Pune.); v) Mr. Sandeep R. Shorewala v/s ITO, ITA no.1610/Mum./2007, etc., dated 14.5.2010’ vi) Anil Nandkishore Goyal v/s ACIT, ITA no.1256/PN./2012, etc., dated 19.4.2013; vii) CIT v/s Smt. Jamnadevi Agarwal, [2010] 328 ITR 656 (Bom.). 5. Learned Departmental Representative relying upon the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer submitted, when the directors of the company from which the assessee had purchased the shares admitted of having provided 6 Deepika Ashok Agarwal accommodation entries only, the share transaction cannot be accep…