CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd.

288 ITR 345High Court2007#526 most cited

What is CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot make an adverse assessment based solely on the statement of a third party if that party refuses to be cross-examined by the assessee and no other corroborating material exists.

181

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. · 288 ITR 345 · Delhi HC · adverse assessment · third party statement · cross-examination · natural justice · reliance on statements · search and seizure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69ASection 68Section 132(4)Section 147Section 69CSection 132(4A)

Issues it is cited on

section 115adsection 44afsection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66section 65jewellery found during searchsection 153a proceedingssection 60section 63section 2(14)(iii)section 65b

Judgments citing CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd.

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Grace Development Associates, Mumbai

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

ITA 712/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Neeraja Sarma.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Devendra Jain.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/s Grace Development Room.No.113,1st floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1st Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. HDFC Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. PAN/GIR No. : AAHFG5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.DR Respondent by : Mr.Devendra Jain.AR Date of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appea…

The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Obulapuram Mining

ITA/100012/2017HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 92ASection 92C

…at the assessing authority had not made available the persons for cross examination of the assessee despite its request. The Tribunal while granting relief had relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SMC Share brokers Ltd, (288 ITR 345 (DEL), wherein the 8 revenue had not made available the persons for cross- examination of the assessee despite of his request. 10. It is further stated regarding disallowance of claim of expenses attributable towards illegal mining Rs.387,76,69,992/- that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Authority noticed that the respond…

The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Obulapuram Mining

ITA/100091/2016HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37

…peal. As this contention made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has taken us through the impugned order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.653(B)/2015 relating to the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. 50 SMC Share Brokers Ltd., reported in 288 ITR 345 & CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, reported in 303 ITR 95. 46.These are the reliances facilitated relating to the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal by the appellants/revenue. Further, addition has been made mainly on the basis of the sworn statement under Section 131 of Mr. R.Gangadhar. Thereafter, enquiries were made from vario…

Mesers Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

…708,710,711/Chd/2018 order i) dated 20.09.2021 ii) Parkash Chand Kothari vs. DCIT as reported in 94 ITR (Trib.) 49 Jaipur Bench Great India Steel Fabricators in ITA No. 746/Chd/2014 dated iii) 03.03.2017 vii) CIT, Delhi vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del) The observation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is extracted as below:- “6. Learned counsel for the revenue relied upon One-up Shares &Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. R.R. Singh, CIT [2003] 262 ITR 2751 to contend that the statement of Manoj Aggarwal had evidentiary value, as observed by the Bombay High Court. There is no doubt that the statem…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…opers Group entire addition deserved to be deleted, particularly so, because the transactions also stood duly reflected in his regular returns. 3. The Tribunal, after referring to the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 345, came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, declined to interfere with the same and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the revenue/appellant sought to question the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the principles of natural jus…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…opers Group entire addition deserved to be deleted, particularly so, because the transactions also stood duly reflected in his regular returns. 3. The Tribunal, after referring to the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 345, came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, declined to interfere with the same and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the revenue/appellant sought to question the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the principles of natural jus…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Realty, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…opers Group entire addition deserved to be deleted, particularly so, because the transactions also stood duly reflected in his regular returns. 3. The Tribunal, after referring to the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 345, came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, declined to interfere with the same and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the revenue/appellant sought to question the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the principles of natural jus…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…opers Group entire addition deserved to be deleted, particularly so, because the transactions also stood duly reflected in his regular returns. 3. The Tribunal, after referring to the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 345, came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, declined to interfere with the same and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the revenue/appellant sought to question the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the principles of natural jus…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…opers Group entire addition deserved to be deleted, particularly so, because the transactions also stood duly reflected in his regular returns. 3. The Tribunal, after referring to the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 345, came to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, declined to interfere with the same and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the revenue/appellant sought to question the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the principles of natural jus…

ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Shreyas Vasant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1580/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Vasant Parikh R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Khar (W), Mumbai- Road, Road, Mumbai- 400052. 400020. Cross Objection No. 30/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Shreyas Vasant Parikh Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepp1118J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. R. Choksi Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V. R. ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 153CSection 68

…e was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show-Cause Notice." (emphasis added) 13.15. In the case of CIT Vs. SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR 345, it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that in absence of witness being made available for cross examination, his statement could not be relied upon to the detriment of the assessee and that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside block assessment. 13.16. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sint. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal [2016]…

Measage Bhai Industries Private Limited, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Moga

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…in ITA No. 501 & 502/Ahd/2016 iv) Andaman Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 281 CTR 241 v) CIT vs Smt. Sunita Dhadda in ITA No. 197/2012(99 CCH394 Raj HC) order dated 31.07.2017 (Rajasthan HC) vi) CIT vs. Smc. Share Brokers Lt. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del) vii) Shree Bishandas Iron Works vs DCIT in ITA No. 1232/Kol/2014 order dated 26.12.2017 viii) Shri Rajeev Agarwal & Sons vs ITO in ITA No. 6087/Del/2018 order dated 21.01.2019 (Del Bench) ix) Smt. Nirmal Sharma vs ITO in ITA No. 4931/Del/2018 order dated 18.01.2019 (Del Bench) x) Anubhav Jain vs ITO in ITA No. 4565/Del/2018 order dated 26.1…

Dev Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 220/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Astha ManiarFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 68

…nchand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) viii) Appropriate Authority vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma 249 ITR 554 (SC) ix) Heirs & LHS of Late Laxmanbhai Patel vs. CIT 327 ITR 290 (Guj) x) CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 (Del.) xi) CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del.) xii) CIT vs. Geetanjali Education Society 174 Taxman 440 (Raj.) The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the above submissions, the ledger account of M/s R G Textile placed at page no. 79, 80 of the paper book reveals that there is an opening debit balance of Rs. 6,58,350/- which represents sales made to the said party in e…

M/S. Grm Trading Co., Angul vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 10/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Chowk, Angul. Chowk, Angul. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aajfg 9627 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shrip.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/6 6/ 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/ /6/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: ShriP.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

…rmation of other parties cannot protect the Assessing officer’s action. In fact such failure should clearly lead to the quashing of the assessment as has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smc Share Brokers Ltd, 288 ITR 345 (Del). However, under the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court, it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to follow the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smc Share Brokers Ltd (supra) especially in the presence of the decision of Hon’ble Orissa High court in the case of Shiv Kumar Agarwal, 186 ITR 734 (Ori), wherein…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-3, Surat vs. Sh. Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Sakariya, Surat

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 48/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153CSection 158BSection 254(1)

…s:- AYs 10-11, 14-15, 15-16 & 17-18 Dineshchandra D Koradia, Nagjibhai M Sakariya & Sh. Hareshbhai M Sakariya  CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in 387 ITR 529 (Guj)  CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 70 taxmann.com 95 (Del)  CIT vs. SMC Broker Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del)  CIT vs. Rajeshkumar [2008] 172 Taxman 74 (Del)  Heirs and Legal Representatives of Lt. Laxmanbhai S. Patel vs. CIT [2008] 327 ITR 290 (Guj)  PCIT, Ahmedabad vs. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel [2017] 79 taxmann.com 257 (Guj)  Jai Karan Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle 25(1), New Delhi [2012] 23 taxmann.com 300 (Del),  DCIT Vs M/s Creative Trendz Pvt.…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…s contention, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions: 1. Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) (Page 186-189 of JPB). 2. Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). 3. CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited 288 ITR 345 (Del.). 28 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. 4. CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del). 5. CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. 295 ITR 105 (Del). 6. CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95 (Del) 7. CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 (Del) 8. CIT v Sunil Aggarwal 379 ITR 367 (Del) 9. Roger Enterprise Ltd vs. CIT 382 I…

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 GM Overseas, Vs ACIT, A-2/132, Prateek Apartments, Circle-48(1), Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAAFG2529A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26th February, 2019 of the CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, relating to assess…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…assessment to be quashed and set aside, as well as on merits.  decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of H…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…assessment to be quashed and set aside, as well as on merits.  decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of H…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…assessment to be quashed and set aside, as well as on merits.  decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of H…

Snehalatha Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…essee cannot seek rescue on following decisions by the Ld.AR:  decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills., vs.CIT reported in 26 ITR 775;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 345;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Sarthak Seciurities Co.Ltd., vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Oracle Systems Corporation, vs. DCIT reported in (2015)94 CCH 0045;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of H…