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 367,154 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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

Karishma Ajay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalekarishma Ajay Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward – 21(2)(1) 218A/219, Shah Nahar Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Bk M.K.Road, Kher Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. : Agapa3857D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singhanand.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghAnand.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…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." 14. 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…

Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -3, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 78/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10(38)Section 56

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.78/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. PAN: AUIPS 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – DR Date of hearing 25/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P…

Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(5), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1999/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), PAN : ADDPT 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 17/10/20…