How many judgments cite (i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite (i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT (40 SOT 475), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 68.

(i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT

40 SOT 475Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#4623 most cited

What is (i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT authority for?

An addition cannot be sustained if it is based solely on the investigation wing's report or third-party statements, especially when supported by documentary evidence.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT · 40 SOT 475 · 2010 · ITAT · investigation wing report · third party statements · documentary evidence · genuineness of transaction · bogus long term capital gain · unexplained cash credit · section 10(38) · section 68

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

price rigging bogus long term capital gain penny stock section 10(38)long term capital gains accommodation entry long term capital gain genuineness of the transaction section 10 section 131 unexplained cash credit undisclosed income

Judgments citing (i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT

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

…ion Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT – [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii)ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal – [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others – ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT – IT(SS))A Nos. 22- 26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal vs. ITO – (vii) Suni…

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

…ion Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT – [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii)ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal – [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others – ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) Sanjay Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai. (v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT – IT(SS))A Nos. 22- 26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash…

TARUNA KATARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 584/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mrs. Taruna Kataria, The Ito-19(2)(2), 404, Bule Heaven, Nehru Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Acgpk 7391 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhavesh R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR

Section 68

…er, addition cannot be transferred from one side to another, addition cannot be transferred from one side to another, addition cannot be sustained, Similar view was Similar view was taken in the following cases. i. Baijnath Baijnath Agarwallla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 Agarwallla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member) (Agra Third Member) ii. Ganeshmull Biliay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIY - IT Ganeshmull Biliay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIY Ganeshmull Biliay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIY No.544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) No.544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) No.544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…evidences, the same could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid, reliance is placed on the following judgments:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT (2010) 40 SOT 475 (Agra) (ii) ITO v. Bibi Rani Bansal (2011) 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (iii) ITO v. Ashok Kumar Banssal ITA No. 289/Agra /2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT v. Amit Agarwal & Others ITA Nos. 247(Kol) of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others v. Dy. CIT IT (SS) A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2011 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal v. ITO ITA No. 1213/Kol/2016 (Kol ITAT) (vii…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

DEEPAK VALJI KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nce to prove the aforesaid allegation Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i) CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 246 (Bom.) (ii) CIT v. Jamma Devi Agarwal (2010) 328 ITR 656 (Bom.) (iii) Baijnath Agarwalla Vs ACIT (2010) 40 SOT 475 (Agra) 13. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has made a small investment and within a short period of time it has grown several times, he submitted that assessee has not aware of share trading and it seems he made the investment on the advice of his brother and inturn his brother invested on the advice of few unknown friends. He b…

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…e could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of the investigation Wing and/or the orders of the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid, reliance is placed on the following judgments: (i) Baijnath Agarwal v. ACIT (2010) 40 SOT 475 (Agra) (ii) ITO v. Bibi Rani Bansal (2011) 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (iii) ITO v. Ashok Kumar Banssal ITA No. 289/Agra /2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT v. Amit Agarwal & Others ITA Nos. 247(Kol) of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others v. Dy. CIT IT (SS) A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2011 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal v. ITO ITA No. 1213/Kol/2016 (Kol ITAT) (v…

ROHIT JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2205/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…tion Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT – [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii) ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal – [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others – ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT – IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal vs. ITO – ITA No. 1213/Kol…

SRI KUSH NAHATA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1899/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1899/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Kush Nahata Vs. Ito, Ward-35(3), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT DR

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

…could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of the Investigation Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid we rely on the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT – [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii) ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal – [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT) Shri Kush Nahata Assessment Year:2014-15 (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others – ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT – IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Pra…

HARI RAM AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2363/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.2363/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Hari Ram Agarwal Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Acdpa 1946 N]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…case, the Hon’ble High Court at Para 21 held that in absence of any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another , addition cannot be sustained. Similar view was taken in the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwalla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member) (ii) Ganeshmull Biijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA No. 544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) (iii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patodia vs. ITO – ITA No. 3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (iv) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO –[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (v) Padduchari Jeevan Prashant vs. ITO – ITA No. 452/Hy…

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1255/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…5/Kol/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Navin Kr. Kajaria & Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria Vs. ACIT Cir-35/36 Kol Page 23 one side to another, addition cannot be sustained. Similar view, according to Ld. AR, was taken in the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwalla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member) (ii) Ganeshmull Biijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA No. 544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) (iii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patodia vs. ITO – ITA No. 3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (iv) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO –[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (v) Padduchari Jeevan Prashant vs. ITO – ITA No. 452/H…

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1254/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

SRI VIVEK JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 63(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2333/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 68

…ion Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT – [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii) ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal – [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others – ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT – IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal vs. ITO – ITA No. 1213/Kol…

VASUDHA JAIN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1018/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 68

…ion Wing and/or the orders of SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT – [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii) ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal – [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others – ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT – IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal vs. ITO – ITA No. 1213/Kol…

SHRI UDIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT)-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 1839/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2014-15 Shri Udit Agarwal V/S. Dcit (It)-2(1), 110, 3, Madan Mohan Burman Shanti Pally, Kolkata- Street, Kolkataa-007 107 [Pan No.Ahupa 0424 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22,Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2017 Passed In Case No.71/Cit(A)/22/Kol/14-15/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Learned Representatives. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹64,99,391/- To Be Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- ”06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Treating The Amount Of Rs.67,24,391/- Being Claimed By The Appellant To Be Proceeds Of Shares Sold To Be Ltcg & Claimed As Exempt. The Findings Of The Ld. Ao Are Based On The Information Being Supplied By The Investigation Wing Of The Department At Kolkata. I Have Also Carefully Examined The Submissions Of The Appellant, Wherein

Section 143(3)Section 68

…h Court at Para 21 held that in absence of any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another, addition cannot be sustained. Similar view, according to Ld. AR, was taken in the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwalla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member) (ii) Ganeshmull Biijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA No. 544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) (iii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patodia vs. ITO – ITA No. 3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (iv) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO –[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (v) Padduchari Jeevan Prashant vs. ITO – ITA No. 452/H…

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…ers or any other persons including the alleged exit providers whatsoever to convert unaccounted money for getting benefit of LTCG as alleged. Reference in this connection is further craved to the following case laws: a) This Baijnath Agarwalla v. ACIT (2010) 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member (pages 505-534 of PB-5): Held as under: ―In the stock exchange when the transaction is entered into, the assessee is not aware of the buyer of the shares. He enters into transaction only through a share broker. Therefore, the observation of the AO that the assessee could not identify the buyer cannot be the basis of regarding t…

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

ADITYA VIKRAM SUREKA, HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1650/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1650/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aditya Vikram Sureka Huf -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2) , Kolkata [Pan: Aamha 4069 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

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

…Court at Para 21 held that in absence of any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another, addition cannot be sustained. Similar view, according to Ld. AR, was taken in the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwalla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member) (ii) Ganeshmull Biijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA No. 544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) (iii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patodia vs. ITO – ITA No. 3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (iv) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO –[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (v) Padduchari Jeevan Prashant vs. ITO – ITA No. 452/H…

SMT. MADHU KILLA, KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 834/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 10(38)

…h Court at Para 21 held that in absence of any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another, addition cannot be sustained. Similar view, according to Ld. AR, was taken in the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwalla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member) (ii) Ganeshmull Biijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT – ITA No. 544/Kol/13 dated 4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal) 6 Madhu Killa. AY 2014-15 (iii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patodia vs. ITO – ITA No. 3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (iv) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO –[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) (v) Padduchari Jeevan Prash…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2