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

Ajay Shankarlal Bankda, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2484/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2484/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ajay Shankarlal Bankda बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-16(2) B Wing 4301, Db Woods, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Gokuldham, Goregaon East, Maharshi Karve Marg Mumbai-400063. Road, New Marine Lines, Churchagate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpb2851J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,06,950/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…s a substantial question of law for the purpose of maintaining the appeal under section 260-A of the Act, 1961.” 10. 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…

ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alpha Rajendra Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 1922/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (JM) I.T.A. No. 1922/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) Vs. Alpa Rajendra Jain ITO-19(1)(1) Room No. 501 2405, Panchratna 5th Floor M.P. Marg, Opera Piramal Chambers House, Mumbai-400004. Lalbaug Mumbai-400 012. PAN : ACPPJ9850N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Karan Jain Department by Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date of Hearing 18.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 29-03- 2023 passed by L…

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

…s a substantial question of law for the purpose of maintaining the appeal under section 260-A of the Act, 1961.” 24. 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 29 A.Y. 2011-12 Neeta Rajesh Lodha 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 obse…

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

…s a substantial question of law for the purpose of maintaining the appeal under section 260-A of the Act, 1961.” 23. 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…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

…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…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

…s a substantial question of law for the purpose of maintaining the appeal under section 260-A of the Act, 1961.” 23. 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 28 A.Y. 2012-13 Sheetal Rupesh Savla 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 o…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : A.Y : 2014-15 Alka Dilip Doshi Vs. ITO – 19(1)(1), Mumbai. 20, 4th Floor, Hanuman Sharan, (Respondent) Nr. Parsi Hospital, Kemps Corner, Mumbai 400 036. PAN : AJIPD6974F (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Gopani Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date of Hearing : 20/02/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 24-03- 20…

Chirag Tejprakash Dangi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 3256/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 3256/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15) Vs. ITO, Ward-26(1)(5) Chirag Tejprakash Dangi 5D, Kamgar Nagar C-11, 7th Floor S.G. Barve Marg, Kurla Pratyaksh Kar Mumbai-400 024. Bhavan, BKC Bandra East PAN : AJYPD2884J Mumbai-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Department by Shri P. Suresh Date of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order…

Komal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 645/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Komal Agarwal बिधम / Dcit, Central Circle 7(3) 203, Ugam, N.S Road No.9, Room No 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Ville Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400097 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ahwpr9295B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Harion TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 645/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Komal Agarwal बिधम / DCIT, Central Circle 7(3) 203, Ugam, N.S Road No.9, Room No 655, 6th Floor, Vs. JVPD Scheme, Juhu, Ville Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400097 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.PAN/GIR No. : AHWPR9295B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Harion Tulsiyan Revenue by: Shri P. D. Chougule सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 17/01/2024…

Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta बिधम/ Ito-31(2)(4) 1501, Anmol Enclave, Opp Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C- Vs. Patel Auto, Goregaon West, 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400062. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpg0969J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri Amit Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Shares M/S. Sunrise Asian Limited (Hereafter “M/S. Sunrise”) Of Rs.98,81,550/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). & Thus Denying Deduction U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,97,631/- As Commission For Arranging The Bogus Ltcg (2% Of Commission) U/S 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri AmitFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…ombay 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: 36 A.Y. 2014-15 Mr…

Naz Shazia, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnaz Shazia, Vs. Ito, Anwar House, Ground Ward-1(1), Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini Moradabad Bye Pass Road, Moradabad Pan: Bbwps217R Assessee By : Shri V. K. Tulsian, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Tulsian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69A

…nd sale of shares are through Demat account. More so, when there is no dispute regarding the purchase price and sale price of shares. My view is further fortified by the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jamnadevi Agarwal reported in 328 ITR 656 (Bom) wherein it was held that:- “From the documents produced before the Court it was seen that the shares in question were, in fact, purchased by the assessees on the respective dates and the company had confirmed to have handed over the shares purchased by the assessees. Similarly, the sale of the shares of the respective buyer was also establ…

Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(1), Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2398/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward - 25(1)(1), 1601, Kanchan Ganga, Kautilya Bhawan, J.P Road, Manishnagar, G- Block,Bkc, Andheri (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa1748E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri.UjjawalkumarChavhanSr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69

…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: "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 when documentary ITA Nos. 93 to 99/RPR/2014 & C.O. Nos. 12 to 18/RPR/201…

Sanjay Madanraj Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1502/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Ssanjay Madanrajshah, Acit – 32(3) 316, New Link Way Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate, Near Chincholi Bkc Complex, Vs. Fire Brigade, Bandra (E), Malad (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajcps1858H (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Jhunjhunwala.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj kumar Sinha.DR

Section 68Section 69C

…dences 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." Sanjay Madanraj Shah., Mumbai 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…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Vinod Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 66/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…CH 106 (AhdTrib) (x) ITO Vs. Arvind Kumar Jain HUF (2017) 51 CCH 281 (Mum Trib) (xi) Farrah Marker Vs. Income Tax Officer (2016) 46 CCH 535 Mum Trib (xii) CIT Vs. Anirudh Narayan Agrawal (2013) 84 CCH 28 (All) (xiii) CIT Vs. Smt. Jamnadevi Agarwal &Ors (2010) 328 ITR 656 (Mum) (xiv) Kamala Devi S. Doshi&Ors Vs. ITO &Ors (2017) 50 CCH 53 Mum Trib (xv) Smt. Smita P. Patil&Ors. Vs. ACIT (2014) 159 TTJ 182 (Pune) (xvi) ACIT Vs. Kamal Kumar S. Agarwal (Indl) &Ors: (2010) 113 TTJ 818 (Nag Trib) (xvii) CIT v. ShreevashiGanguli (ITA No. 196 of 2012) (Cal HC) (xviii) CIT v. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in (No. 22 of 2009, dt.…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Pramod Kumar Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 65/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Sheetal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 64/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Madan Lal Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 63/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Ravi Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 62/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Vinay Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 61/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar