CIT v. Sanghamitra Bharali

361 ITR 481High Court2014#1913 most cited

What is CIT v. Sanghamitra Bharali authority for?

Capital gains arising from sham transactions, particularly those involving penny stocks designed to appear genuine, are not exempt under Section 10(38) but are taxable as unaccounted income brought into the books.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sanghamitra Bharali · 361 ITR 481 · Section 10(38) · bogus long term capital gain · penny stock · sham transaction · accommodation entry · genuineness of transaction · onus of proof · Section 131 · Section 147 · entry operator

Sections most often in play

Section 106Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 1961Section 250

Issues it is cited on

onus of proofpaper companybogus long term capital gainbogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)entry operatorlong term capital gainsshare application moneyaccommodation entrysection 131genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Sanghamitra Bharali

ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack vs. Smt. Shashi Kala Agarwal, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 31/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

…in all the cases is liable to be reversed. Ld SR DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. P a g e 6 | 12 5. In the revenue’s ground in Ground No.5, the revenue has placed the 12 decisions being as follows: i) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali, 361 ITR 481 (Gau) ii) Sanjay Bhimlchand Jain vs Pr. CIT, 89 TAXMANN.COM 196 (Bom) iii) Udit Kalra vs ITO, (ita No.220/2019) iv) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 1254 (Guj) v) Ratnakar M Pujari vs ITO (ita No.995/Mum/2012) order dated 9.5.2016 vi) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO (ITA No.57154/Del/2018) dt.25.4.2019 vii) Sanat Kumar vs ACIT (ITA No.…

ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 30/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

…in all the cases is liable to be reversed. Ld SR DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. P a g e 6 | 12 5. In the revenue’s ground in Ground No.5, the revenue has placed the 12 decisions being as follows: i) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali, 361 ITR 481 (Gau) ii) Sanjay Bhimlchand Jain vs Pr. CIT, 89 TAXMANN.COM 196 (Bom) iii) Udit Kalra vs ITO, (ita No.220/2019) iv) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 1254 (Guj) v) Ratnakar M Pujari vs ITO (ita No.995/Mum/2012) order dated 9.5.2016 vi) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO (ITA No.57154/Del/2018) dt.25.4.2019 vii) Sanat Kumar vs ACIT (ITA No.…

ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack vs. Shri Ashwin Kumar Agarwal, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 29/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

…in all the cases is liable to be reversed. Ld SR DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. P a g e 6 | 12 5. In the revenue’s ground in Ground No.5, the revenue has placed the 12 decisions being as follows: i) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali, 361 ITR 481 (Gau) ii) Sanjay Bhimlchand Jain vs Pr. CIT, 89 TAXMANN.COM 196 (Bom) iii) Udit Kalra vs ITO, (ita No.220/2019) iv) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 1254 (Guj) v) Ratnakar M Pujari vs ITO (ita No.995/Mum/2012) order dated 9.5.2016 vi) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO (ITA No.57154/Del/2018) dt.25.4.2019 vii) Sanat Kumar vs ACIT (ITA No.…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack vs. Ashwin Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 303/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

…in all the cases is liable to be reversed. Ld SR DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. P a g e 6 | 12 5. In the revenue’s ground in Ground No.5, the revenue has placed the 12 decisions being as follows: i) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali, 361 ITR 481 (Gau) ii) Sanjay Bhimlchand Jain vs Pr. CIT, 89 TAXMANN.COM 196 (Bom) iii) Udit Kalra vs ITO, (ita No.220/2019) iv) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 1254 (Guj) v) Ratnakar M Pujari vs ITO (ita No.995/Mum/2012) order dated 9.5.2016 vi) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO (ITA No.57154/Del/2018) dt.25.4.2019 vii) Sanat Kumar vs ACIT (ITA No.…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 302/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

…in all the cases is liable to be reversed. Ld SR DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. P a g e 6 | 12 5. In the revenue’s ground in Ground No.5, the revenue has placed the 12 decisions being as follows: i) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali, 361 ITR 481 (Gau) ii) Sanjay Bhimlchand Jain vs Pr. CIT, 89 TAXMANN.COM 196 (Bom) iii) Udit Kalra vs ITO, (ita No.220/2019) iv) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 1254 (Guj) v) Ratnakar M Pujari vs ITO (ita No.995/Mum/2012) order dated 9.5.2016 vi) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO (ITA No.57154/Del/2018) dt.25.4.2019 vii) Sanat Kumar vs ACIT (ITA No.…

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack vs. Smt. Shashi Kala Agarwala, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 301/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

…in all the cases is liable to be reversed. Ld SR DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. P a g e 6 | 12 5. In the revenue’s ground in Ground No.5, the revenue has placed the 12 decisions being as follows: i) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali, 361 ITR 481 (Gau) ii) Sanjay Bhimlchand Jain vs Pr. CIT, 89 TAXMANN.COM 196 (Bom) iii) Udit Kalra vs ITO, (ita No.220/2019) iv) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 1254 (Guj) v) Ratnakar M Pujari vs ITO (ita No.995/Mum/2012) order dated 9.5.2016 vi) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO (ITA No.57154/Del/2018) dt.25.4.2019 vii) Sanat Kumar vs ACIT (ITA No.…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Himansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 45/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Himansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 44/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Deepansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 43/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Deepansu Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 42/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Anupama Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 41/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Anupama Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 40/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Sitansu Sekhar Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 38/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Smt. Kuntala Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 50/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Parbati Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 49/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Kishore Kumar Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 48/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Mamata Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 47/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

ITO, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak vs. Amruta Preetam Mohapatra, Bhadrak

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 46/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…Ltd (KAFL) by merely relying upon a couple of decisions of ITAT Benches, ignoring the following judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals, which are rendered in favour of revenue on the same issue of "Penny Stocks": (a) CIT vs Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) 361 ITR 481 (Gauhati) (b) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr.CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooj…

Rubberwala Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (3)91), Mumbai

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

ITA 299/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.299 & 314/M/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Rubberwala Income Tax Officer- Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 5(3)(1), Ground Floor, Room No.526, Rubberwala House, Vs. 5th Floor, Dr. A. Nair Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Agripada, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 011 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCR2994L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Mani Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021…

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Arihant Kumar Jain, New Delhi

ITA 5342/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143Section 68

…ey into white and relied upon the judgments cited as McDowell & Co. (1985) 154 ITR148 (SC), Suman Poddar vs. ITO in SLP (C) No.26864/2019 order dated 22.11.2019, Shri Sourabh Khandelwal vs. Pr.CIT WP Nos.1918/2018 & 1922/De018, CIT vs. Sanghamitra Bharali 361 ITR 481, Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward 50(1) in ITA 220/2019 judgment dated 08.03.2019, Manvi Khandelwal vs. ITO in ITA No.3212/Del/2018 for AY 2014-15 order dated 26.11.2019, Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO in ITA No.5714/Del/2018 order dated 25.04.2019 & Shri Abhimanyu Soin vs. ACIT in ITA No.951/Chd/2016 order dated 18.04.2018. 8 ITA No.5342/Del./2018 12. Howeve…