CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

Mr Pankaj Goshar, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

…rop of these facts the transaction could not be treated as non genuine merely because they are done in off- market." The Ld.CIT(A) took support of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jamna Devi Agrawal (328 ITR 656)(Bom). 18. The Ld.CIT(A) noticed that the assessee and his sister has been exonerated by the SEBI in its order dated 19-09-2017. Further, the SEBI had also exonerated certain exit providers quoted by the AO in the assessment order. Accordingly, he held that the reliance placed by the AO on Ad-interim order of SEBI would fail. 19. The Ld.CIT(A) al…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

…drop of these facts the transaction could not be treated as non genuine merely because they are done in off market." The Ld.CIT(A) took support of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jamna Devi Agrawal (328 ITR 656)(Bom). 18. The Ld.CIT(A) noticed that the assessee and his sister has been exonerated by the SEBI in its order dated 19-09-2017. Further, the SEBI had also exonerated certain exit providers quoted by the AO in the assessment order. Accordingly, he held that the reliance placed by the AO on Ad-interim order of SEBI would fail. 19. The Ld.CIT(A) al…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

…drop of these facts the transaction could not be treated as non genuine merely because they are done in off market." The Ld.CIT(A) took support of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jamna Devi Agrawal (328 ITR 656)(Bom). 18. The Ld.CIT(A) noticed that the assessee and his sister has been exonerated by the SEBI in its order dated 19-09-2017. Further, the SEBI had also exonerated certain exit providers quoted by the AO in the assessment order. Accordingly, he held that the reliance placed by the AO on Ad-interim order of SEBI would fail. 19. The Ld.CIT(A) al…

Preeti Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 28(2)(4), Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

…Pr. CIT Vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (130 taxmann.com 177) 27. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar [2015] 54 taxmann.com 108/229 Taxman 256 28. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Jamna Devi Agarwal (328 ITR 656) 29. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Ziauddin A Siddique [Income-tax Appeal No. 2012 of 2017, dated 4-3-2022] 30. Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Prem Pal Gandhi [2018] 94 taxmann.com 156/401 ITR 253 30. Decision of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in case of Shri Y…

Manjula H. Vira, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27(2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 Manjula H. Vira, Acit-27(2), 1201, Kailash Palace, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Upashray Lane, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Ghatkopar (East), Vashi, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai. Pan : Anips5867Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assesseee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 04-08-2023 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year (Ay.) 2015-16. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3.28 Crores Relating To Sale Prices Of Shares Added By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) & Also The Addition Of Rs.9,83,123/- Relating To Estimated Commission Expenses Made U/S 69C Of The Act.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Manjula H. Vira, ACIT-27(2), 1201, Kailash Palace, Tower No. 6, 4th Floor, Upashray Lane, vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Ghatkopar (East), Vashi, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai. PAN : ANIPS5867Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 04-12-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09-12-2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assesseee has filed this appeal challeng…

Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Divesh Ashok Bafna, Mumbai

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Divesh Ashok Bafna, Ward-20(1)(1), 302, C-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 303, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Arihant Apartment, Piramal Chamber, Dr. D.B. Marg, Lalbaugh, Parel, Mumbai Central, Mumbai. Mumbai. Pan : Atapb9065D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…h Courts. Some of the decisions referred to by the Co-ordinate Bench are:- (a) Shri Yogesh P Thakkar (ITA No.1612/Mum/2021 dated 03-02-23); (b) Shyam Pawar (220 Taxman 256)(Bom); (c) DCIT vs. Mukesh R Moralia (6 SOT 247)(Mum); (d) CIT vs. Jamna Devi Agarwal (328 ITR 656)(Bom); (e) PCIT vs. Ziauddin A Siddique (ITA No. 2012 of 2017 dated 04-03-2022) (f) PCIT vs. Gaurav Bagaria (453 ITR 513)(Raj) Finally, the Co-ordinate Bench concluded as under:- “28. For the various reasons discussed in the foregoing and following the judgments cited above, more particularly of the binding jurisdictional High Court in the cases…

Income Tax Officer- 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-10(1)(1), Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Room No. 509, 5Th Floor, 4, Kingston, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, M.K. Road, Shashtri Nagar, Mumbai. Andheri (West), Mumbai. Pan : Aabpa4070D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-10(1)(1), Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Room No. 509, 5th Floor, 4, Kingston, Aayakar Bhavan, vs. Lokhandwala Complex, M.K. Road, Shashtri Nagar, Mumbai. Andheri (West), Mumbai. PAN : AABPA4070D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 03-12-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The Revenue has filed this…

Aakash Dilip Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2014-15 Aakash Dilip Doshi, Income Tax Officer–19(1)(1), 408/409, 4Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Jivan Vihar, Vs. Matru Mandir, Manav Mandir Road, Tardeo, Malbar Hill, Mumbai Walkeshwar, Mumbai Pan : Ailpd8283D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue By : Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aakash Dilip Doshi, Income Tax Officer–19(1)(1), 408/409, 4th Floor, 2nd Floor, Jivan Vihar, vs. Matru Mandir, Manav Mandir Road, Tardeo, Malbar Hill, Mumbai Walkeshwar, Mumbai PAN : AILPD8283D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue by : Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dat…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumabi vs. Mohammed Ali Ebrahim Gheewala, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “F” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1487/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2011-12 1503/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2011-12 C.O. No. 91/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2011-12 (Arising out of ITA No. 1503/M/24) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Mrs. Rehana Mohammed Ali Piramal Chambers, Gheewala, (Legal heir of Lalbaugh, Parel, Mohammed Ali Ebrahim Mumbai. Gheewala), (Appellant) 202, Bombay Market, Mumbai Central, TARDEO, Mumbai. PAN : AEIPG5619P (Respondent/Cross Objector) For Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya For Revenu…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lalbaug vs. Mohammed Ali Ebrahim Gheewala, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “F” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1487/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2011-12 1503/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2011-12 C.O. No. 91/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2011-12 (Arising out of ITA No. 1503/M/24) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Mrs. Rehana Mohammed Ali Piramal Chambers, Gheewala, (Legal heir of Lalbaugh, Parel, Mohammed Ali Ebrahim Mumbai. Gheewala), (Appellant) 202, Bombay Market, Mumbai Central, TARDEO, Mumbai. PAN : AEIPG5619P (Respondent/Cross Objector) For Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya For Revenu…

Ahmed P. Surani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

…ins that all the documentary evidences are in favour of assessee and learned CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same. 12. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal, 328 ITR 656 (Bom) has observed as under: Income-Cash credit-Genuineness of share transactions- Assessees offered long- term capital gains arising from sale of shares-On the basis of material seized during the search in the case of various assessees who belong to H group, AO did not accept the capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares a…

Bhavana Lalit Jain, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-15(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

…ed upon the following decision of the jurisdictional High Court’s and Supreme Court’s 1. PCIT versus Renu Agarwal 456 ITR 249 (SC) 2. PCIT versus Indravadan Jain HUF 3. DCIT versus Parasben K Kochar 130 taxmann.com 177 (SC) 4. ITO versus Jamnadev Aggarwal 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 5. CIT versus Shyam R Pawar 229 taxman 256 (Bom) 8.7 in the case of PCIT versus Rima. No other was (supra) honourable Supreme Court held that when there is no adverse comment from the stock exchange of SEBI with reference to the company who shares were involved in the transactions, such as cannot be called as penny A Y : 2014–15 Bhavna La…

Amit Sajjan Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

…ns that all the documentary evidences are in favour of assessee and learned CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same." 12. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal, 328 ITR 656 (Bom) has observed as under: Income-Cash credit-Genuineness of share transactions-Assessees offered long- term capital gains arising from sale of shares-On the basis of material seized during the search in the case of various assessees who belong to H group, AO did not accept the capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares a…

ITO-28.3.1, Navi Mumbai vs. Seema Narendra Bapna, Nerul

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

…Court’s and Supreme Court’s A Y : 2014–15 Income Tax Officer Versus Seema Narendra Bapna 1. PCIT versus Renu Agarwal 456 ITR 249 (SC) 2. PCIT versus Indravadan Jain HUf 3. DCIT versus Parasben K Kochar 130 taxmann.com 177 (SC) 4. ITO versus Jamnadev Aggarwal 328 ITR 656 (Bom) 5. CIT versus Shyam R Pawar 229 taxman 256 (Bom) 8.7 in the case of PCIT versus Rima. No other was (supra) honourable Supreme Court held that when there is no adverse comment from the stock exchange of SEBI with reference to the company who shares were involved in the transactions, such as cannot be called as penny shares and the exemption…

Banwari Purshottam Bhargav, Andheri West Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year 2014-15 Banwari Purshottam Bhargav, Income Tax Officer-24(1)(3), Flat No. 202, Panch Amrut, Piramal Chamber, Panch Complex, Off. Yari Road, Vs. Lalbaug, Versova, Andheri West, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Aabpb7453M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2024

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2014-15 Banwari Purshottam Bhargav, Income Tax Officer-24(1)(3), Flat No. 202, Panch Amrut, Piramal Chamber, Panch Complex, Off. Yari Road, vs. Lalbaug, Versova, Andheri West, Mumbai Mumbai PAN : AABPB7453M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Revenue by: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 11/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09/10/2024 PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Keshavji Nongha Shah, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2014-15 Asst.Commissioner Of Income Keshavji Nongha Shah, Tax, M/S. Ankur Harganga Mahal, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Khodad Circle, Dadar T.T., Lalbaug, Mumbai Mumbai. Pan : Aaeps6097B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, For Revenue : Shri P.D. Chougule,(Addl.Cit) Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Asst.Commissioner of Income Keshavji Nongha Shah, Tax, M/s. Ankur Harganga Mahal, Piramal Chambers, vs. Khodad Circle, Dadar T.T., Lalbaug, Mumbai Mumbai. PAN : AAEPS6097B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, For Revenue : Shri P.D. Chougule,(Addl.CIT) Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 0…

Anju Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…s that all the documentary evidences are in favour of assessee and learned CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same." 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal, 328 ITR 656 (Bom) has observed as under: Income-Cash credit-Genuineness of share transactions- Assessees offered long- term capital gains arising from sale of shares-On the basis of material seized during the search in the case of various assessees who belong to H group, AO did not accept the capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares…

Nirav Shailendra Mody, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

…t account and sale of shares are through Demat account. More so, when there is no dispute regarding the purchase price and sale price of shares. Our view is furtherfortified by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vs Jamnadevi Agarwal reported in 328 ITR 656 (Bom). in the case of CIT 6.4. We find that independent enquiries were conducted by Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI in short) and SEBI had passed a separate order in respect of the said scrip in which assessee had dealt. In the said order, SEBI had listed out the names and PAN of various persons who were involved in artificial price…