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

Praveen Sitaram Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-24(3)(3), 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…

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…8/2017 dated 16.02.2017. Copy of judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar reported in 229 Tахтап 256 dated 10.12.2014. Copy of judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT CIT v. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal reported in 328 ITR 656 dated 23.09.2010 Copy of judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maheshchandra G. Vakil reported in 220 Тахтап 166 (Magz) dated 25.09.2012. Copy of judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt Sumitra Devi reported in 229 Taxman 67 dated 24.02.2014. Copy of judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in t…

Amee Shreyance Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the above appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2450/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2450/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Amee Shreyance Shah, v/s. 1st Floor, 20 Preyas Building, बनाम Dadiseth Road, Babulnath, Mumbai-400 007, Maharashtra Income Tax Officer, Ward - 19(1)(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: BBKPS0688G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Anil Kshatriya, AR Respondent by : Shri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.0…

Kashyap M Vora (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3394/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Mum/2023 dated 5.4.2024 wherein the hon'ble Tribunal deleted similar addition placing reliance on the judgments of hon'ble Bombay High court in CIT vs Shyam Pawar 54 Taxmann.com 108,PCIT vs Ziauddin A.Siddique in ITA No.2012 of 2017,CIT vs Jamna Devil Agrawal 20 Taxmann.com 529.Further, reference has also been made to the decision of hon'ble Apex Court in Adamine Construction P.Ltd 99 Taxman 45. Page | 9 ITA No. 3394/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2012-13 Kashyap M. Vora 6.4 With regard to the estimated addition u/s 69C, the ld.AR has contented that provisions of section incurrence of an expenditure. The AO has not placed any evi…

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raichand Parasmal Chokshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, 305, Ashirwad Building, Lalabaug 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaapc6486C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, Huf Lalabaug 305, Ashirwad Building, Mumbai 400012 Vs. 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaahr1005A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Umang Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are In The Case Of An Individual & Huf Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- Ay 2017-18 24/1060184522(1) Dated 29.01.2024 For Individual & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064573907(1), Dated 02.05.2024 For The Huf, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.05.2023 & 21.04.2023, Respectively For Individual & Huf For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Appeal In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Is By The Individual & That In Ita No. 3374/Mum/2024 Is By The Huf With The Present Individual As Its Karta. Common Issue Is Involved In Both The Appeals By The Revenue, Raising Identical Grounds Except For Variation In The Quantum Of Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Grounds Taken By The Revenue In The Case Of Individual In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Umang Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 144Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, 305, Ashirwad Building, Lalabaug 10th Khetwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400004. (PAN: AAAPC6486C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, HUF Lalabaug 305, Ashirwad Building, Mumbai 400012 Vs. 10th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400004. (PAN: AAAHR1005A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: As…

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(2), Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai 432, Lamington Road, Shigney Building, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai – 400004 (PAN : AADHM4374A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Mitesh Mehta, CA Revenue : Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National…

Dilip Kumar Hazarimal Ahuja, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2452/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dilipkumar Hazarimal Ahuja Commissioner of Income- D-2, Plot No.145 tax(Appeal), Gold Mine, Sector – 21 National Faceless Appeal Centre Vs. Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400706 Navi Mumbai (PAN:ACJPA1575F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Advocate Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the as…

Rekha Rajesh Jogani, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Sashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 274Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rekha Rajesh Jogani Income Tax Officer Ward 259 Shanti Sadan, 3rd Floor 19(3)(1), Room No.23, Mumbai Vs. Lamington Road, Grant Road Mumbai – 400 007 (PAN : ADHPJ9155H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri. Sashank Mehta, CA Revenue : Mr. R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the…

Jayesh Tarachand Kothari, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the addition made in this regard for both AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. 12. In result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 are allowed

ITA 1553/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N Pawar / Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…iven facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law. 10. In the case of CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal (328 ITR 656), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares furnished by the assessee establish genuineness of the claim. In the instant case also, we noticed that the evidences furnished by the assessee to prove the purchase and sale of shares, payment made/received, entry/exit of shares in the demat account of the…

Jayesh Tarachand Kothari, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the addition made in this regard for both AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. 12. In result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 are allowed

ITA 1552/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N Pawar / Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…iven facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law. 10. In the case of CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal (328 ITR 656), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares furnished by the assessee establish genuineness of the claim. In the instant case also, we noticed that the evidences furnished by the assessee to prove the purchase and sale of shares, payment made/received, entry/exit of shares in the demat account of the…

Jayesh Tarachand Kothari, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 19(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the addition made in this regard for both AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. 12. In result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 are allowed

ITA 1551/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N Pawar / Sneha MoreFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…iven facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law. 10. In the case of CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal (328 ITR 656), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares furnished by the assessee establish genuineness of the claim. In the instant case also, we noticed that the evidences furnished by the assessee to prove the purchase and sale of shares, payment made/received, entry/exit of shares in the demat account of the…

ITO, Mumbai vs. Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani, Mumbai

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

ITA 5177/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-24(1)(1), Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani, Piramal Chambers, 2601/02, Royal Empire, Lalbaugh, Parel, Vs. Shashtri Nagar, Mumbai Andheri West, Mumbai Pan :Admpv7590F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 10(38)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-24(1)(1), Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani, Piramal Chambers, 2601/02, Royal Empire, Lalbaugh, Parel, vs. Shashtri Nagar, Mumbai Andheri West, Mumbai PAN :ADMPV7590F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui Date of Hearing : 05-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10-03-2025 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 07-08-20…

Jaibhagwan Banarasidas Jindal, Jalna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 2016/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 Jaibhagwan Banarasidas Jindal ITO, Ward-1, Jalna 29, New Mondha, Bus Stand, Jalna HO, Vs. Jalna – 431203 PAN: AAQPJ5374E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 06-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-02-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.08.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assess…

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

…sioner of Income Tax –Vs.-Ziauddin A Siddique, ITA No. 2012 of 2017, judgment dated 04/03/2022 (Bom); ix) Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.-Shyam R. Pawar, [2015] 229 Taxman 256 (Bom. HC); x) Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.- Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal &Ors., [2010] 328 ITR 656 (Bom HC); xi) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.- Smt. Krishna Devi [2021] 431 ITR 361 (Del. HC) 14. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Courts in the case laws cited supra, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case.…

Meena Hasmukh Savla, Matunga Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2910/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2910/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Meena Hasmukh Savla 702, Pranav Residency, 302 Bhimani Street, Matunga, Mumbai. Vs. ITO – 27(2)(1) Vashi Railway Stn Bldg, Vashi. PAN/GIR No. AADPS1482K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by Shri Sunny Kachhwaha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 13.05.2024 passed u/s 2…

DCIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…bai in the cases of Dipesh Ramesh P a g e | 7 A.Y. 2015-16 Pavankumar Bachhraj Chandan Vardhan vs. DCIT [I.T.A. No.7648/Mum/2019; Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT [ITA No. 3429/Mum/2019; order dated 01.10.2019], CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agrawal Ors. [2010] 328 ITR 656 (Bom), Farrah Marker Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 dated 27.4.2018), Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT [WP No.: 2518 OF 2019; Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia & Ors. vs. DCIT [I.T.A. No. 6519/Mum/2019, Narayan Ramchandra Rathi v. ITO (ITA No. 4811/MUM/2018), Arun S. Tripathi v. PCIT (ITA No. 2560/MUM/2018), and Anraj H. Shah (HUF) v. ITO (ITA No.…

Nitin Shantilal Solanki, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5183/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2016-17 Nitin Shantilal Solanki, Income Tax Officer, 4Th Floor, Ward-27(2)(1), Veer Vijay Apartment, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Building, M.G. Road, Ghatkoper West, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Mumbai 6Th Tower, Complex, Pan: Aqbps3462P Navi Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande
Section 10(38)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nitin Shantilal Solanki, Income Tax Officer, 4th Floor, Ward-27(2)(1), Veer Vijay Apartment, vs. Vashi Railway Station Building, M.G. Road, Ghatkoper West, 3rd & 4th Floor, Mumbai 6th Tower, Complex, PAN: AQBPS3462P Navi Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shashank Mehta For Revenue : Ms. Monika H. Pande Date of Hearing : 29-01-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06-02-2025 PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ect judicial decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional HighCourt and Hon'ble ITAT, wherein it is decided that off-market purchase of shares is not an illegal activity and would not disprove the genuineness of transactions, as under:- a) CIT vs. SmtJamnadevi Agrawal-20 Taxmann.com 529 (Bom-HC) b) Mukesh R Marolia-88 CCH 27 (SC) c)Shri Yogesh P. Thakkar v. DCIT-ITA-1605/M/2021 dated 03/02/2023 P a g e | 12 ITA No. 257, 261 & 262/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Hitesh Mangilal Jain d) Shri Bhikamchand Mutha v. IΙΤΟ - ΙΤΑ - 2562/M/2022 dated 30/01/2023 10.7 It is contented that the Ld. AO doubted the genuineness of sale t…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 261/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ect judicial decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional HighCourt and Hon'ble ITAT, wherein it is decided that off-market purchase of shares is not an illegal activity and would not disprove the genuineness of transactions, as under:- a) CIT vs. SmtJamnadevi Agrawal-20 Taxmann.com 529 (Bom-HC) b) Mukesh R Marolia-88 CCH 27 (SC) c)Shri Yogesh P. Thakkar υ. DCIT-ITA-1605/M/2021 dated 03/02/2023 10.7 It is contented that the Ld. AO doubted the genuineness of sale transaction of shares by holding that the price of shares had substantially increased in short period of time and such is not in consonance to its financial resul…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

ITA 257/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ect judicial decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional HighCourt and Hon'ble ITAT, wherein it is decided that off-market purchase of shares is not an illegal activity and would not disprove the genuineness of transactions, as under:- a) CIT vs. SmtJamnadevi Agrawal-20 Taxmann.com 529 (Bom-HC) b) Mukesh R Marolia-88 CCH 27 (SC) c)Shri Yogesh P. Thakkar v. DCIT-ITA-1605/M/2021 dated 03/02/2023 P a g e | 12 ITA No. 257, 261 & 262/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Hitesh Mangilal Jain d) Shri Bhikamchand Mutha v. IΙΤΟ - ΙΤΑ - 2562/M/2022 dated 30/01/2023 10.7 It is contented that the Ld. AO doubted the genuineness of sale t…