How many judgments cite CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal?

230 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal (328 ITR 656), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 69C, Section 147, Section 131.

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 68 Section 143(3)Section 69C Section 147 Section 131 Section 148 Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

price rigging bogus long term capital gain bogus ltcg penny stock section 10(38)period of holding preponderance of probability long term capital gains entry operator colourable device long term capital gain accommodation entry

Judgments citing CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai vs. Manisha Narpatkumar Chopra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2443/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148

…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 : A.Y : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Manisha Narpatkumar Chopra, Ward-23(2)(6), Flat No. 1701, OG II, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Oberoi Garden,Thakur Village Mumbai. off WE Highway, (Appellant) Kandivali (E), Mumbai. PAN : ACTPC4078P (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Ridisha Jain Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 09/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20/08/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The Revenue has filed this appeal cha…

ITO-24(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Rama Rajiv Jagdale, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3131/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Rama Rajiv Jagdale, B/2203, Oberoi Springs, Ward – 24(3)(1), Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai – 400053 (PAN :ACSPJ0091Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Haridas Bhat, CA Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of ld. CIT(A), Nati…

Shah Sandeep Anantkumar HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4628/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4628/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shah Sandeep Anantkumar HUF, 401/402, Aura Biplex Habitat, S.V.Road, …………………Appellant Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. PAN –AALHS5130C v/s ITO-32(3)(4), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kothari Revenue by : Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 29/07/2024 Date of Order – 06/08/2024 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the im…

Manoj Kumar Agarwal HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4250/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Kumar Agarwal Income Tax Officer, 4, Kingston, Lokhandwala Ward- 10(1)(1), Complex, Mumbai Vs. Shastri Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 (PAN : AABPA4070D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manoj Kumar Agarwal HUF Income Tax Officer, 4, Kingston, Lokhandwala Ward- 24(2)(4), Complex, Mumbai Vs. Shastri Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 (PAN : AALHM5311H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee :…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3264/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Shri Vikram N. Chandan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…1 Vikram N. Chandan., AY 2015-16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vikram N. Chandan, Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5), Shop No.7, 56/54, Mumbai Nanubhai Desai Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 004 (PAN : ACYPC2583N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, CA Revenue : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against…

Nimesh Chandrakant Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-33(2)(4), 603, Kaushal Apt, Behind State Bank of India, Shankar Lane, Kandivali -West, Mumbai- 400067, Delhi

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

ITA 4877/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 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 cannot be considered to be bogus, when the documentary evidences 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…

Nitesh Rajhans Singh, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer -26(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4114/MUM/2023[BAMPS4588L]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…issions as under: 1. Pr.CIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF), (Bom HC), ITXA No. 454 of 2018. Dated 12-07-2023. 2. Pr.CIT Vs Ziauddin A Siddique, (Bom HC), ITXA No. 2012 of 2017. 3. CIT Vs Shyam R. Pawar, (Bom HC), 229 Taxman 256 4.CIT Vs Jamnadevi Agarwal, (Bom HC), 328 ITR 656 5. Jaymin Kirtibhai Sanghvi Vs ITO. ITA No. 6070/Mum/2016 dated 18.07.2018. 6. Veena Chaturvedi Vs DCIT 156 taxmann.com 457(Mumbai Tribunal) 7. NS Choodamani Vs CIT (Kerala HC), 35 ITR 676 8. Pr.CIT Vs Parasben Kasturchand Kochar, (SC), 282 taxman. 301 9. Pr.CIT Vs Prem Pal Gandhi, (P&H HC), 401 ITR 253 10. Pr.CIT Vs Krishna Devi, (Delhi HC), 431…

Smt. Sneha Ankit Salecha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Ward, 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jalaj Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A. No. 255/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Sneha Ankit Selecha, ITO, Ward-19(3)(4) 1303,, Vastu Shilp, Gamadia Piramal Chambers, Vs. Colony, Grant Road, S.O. 400007. Mumbai-400012. PAN : AMEPJ4070D Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri Jalaj Prakash, Advocate Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.06.2024 : 27.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal is against the order of assessment passed by the Commission…

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

…s a substantial question of law for the purpose of maintaining the appeal under section 260-A of the Act, 1961.” 25. The Ld. AR of the appellant has rightly relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jamna Devi Agarwal (328 ITR 656). In the decided case, also the Revenue had disputed the genuineness of the long-term capital gains derived by the assessee on sale of shares of listed companies for similar reasons as cited in the present case. On appeal, the Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of this Tribunal deleting the additions by observing as under: “12. From the docum…

Dharmendra Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3897/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIALMEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3897 & 3879/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dharmendra Jayantilal Shah Assistant Commissioner of 1301/4, Raheja Tipco Height, Income Tax-31(1), Rani Sati Marg, Mumbai Malad West, Vs. Maharashtra – 400 097 (PAN: ANHPS1594D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Rajkumar Singh, AR Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These two appeals filed by the…

Dharmendra Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3879/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Ketan Harilal Mehta HUF by Its Karta Ketan H Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-33(2)(2) Mumbai Presently Juridiction With ITO 42(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 770/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

…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: Ketan Harilal Mehta, HUF,Mumbai. 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 ent…

Shaily Prince Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

ITA 4271/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. K Shivaram Sr. Advocate & Shashi BekalFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar SR AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…ng the figure of loss that is stated to have been taken, no distinguishable feature can be or could be placed on record. For the same reasons, even this additional question cannot be termed as substantial question of law.” 4.5. CIT vs Jamnadevi Agrawal [2010] 328 ITR 656 (Bom). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: - "4. In all these cases, the assessees had claimed/offered long-term capital gains on sale of shares of various listed companies, which were all accepted by the Assessing Officer in the respective assessments. Thereafter, on account of search, proceedings were initiated under section 153A o…

Nawal Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4419/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…AO. 23. Let us look at certain judicial decisions on similar facts:- 24. The case of the assessee’s is similar to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in CIT vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal & Ors. dated 23rd September, 2010 reported in (2010) 328 ITR 656 wherein it was held that: 13 ITA. No. 4419/MUM/2023 (A.Y.: 2014-15) Nawal Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai "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 8 ITA No 194/Kol/2018 Kaushalya Agarwal AY-2014-15 and bogus, especially…

Sachin Kanodia, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

…1 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH’ G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Sachin Kanodia Income Tax officer, C/o. Kapil Goel, Adv. F- Ward 42(2), 26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi PAN-BGJPK0712P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 10/05/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S.JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for shor…

Surendrakumar Balakishandas Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3779/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, HON’BLE PRESIDENT& SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2014-15 Surendrakumar Balkishandas Agarwal, 545, Panchratna, Mama Parmanand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai - 400 004. PAN:AABPA-7889-C - Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(3)(1), Matru Mandir, Mumbai. - Respondent Appellant by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 05/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29/04/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT M…

Sheela Ashok Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 68

…Bombay High Court in their order in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 07-09-2011 has affirmed the order of this Tribunal. 14. The Ld. AR of the appellant has rightly relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jamna Devi Agarwal (328 ITR 656). In the decided case, also the Revenue had disputed the genuineness of the long-term capital gains derived by the assessee on sale of shares of listed companies for similar reasons as cited in the present case. On appeal, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of this Tribunal deleting the additions by observing as under: "12. From the docum…

Lalitaben Pravin Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 2008/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) Lalitaben Pravin Shah Vs. CIT(A) 25, Harhar Wala Building, S.V. P. Road Opp. Moti Talkies Mumbai-400 004. PAN : ABIPS1884R (Appellant) New Delhi. (Respondent) Assessee by Department by Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date of Hearing 17.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 05.04.2024 ORDER Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28.4.2023 passed by the learned CIT(A), Nationa…

DCIT-19(1), Income Tax vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan (E-Filed), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2594/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 68

…Bombay High Court in their order in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 07-09-2011 has affirmed the order of this Tribunal. 13. The Ld. AR of the appellant has rightly relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jamna Devi Agarwal (328 ITR 656). In the decided case, also the Revenue had disputed the genuineness of the long-term capital gains derived by the assessee on sale of shares of listed companies for similar reasons as cited in the present case. On appeal, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of this Tribunal deleting the additions by observing as under: "12. From the docum…