ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani

69 Taxmann.com 65Reported decision2016#711 most cited

What is ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani authority for?

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

142

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO vs Shamim M Bharwani · 69 Taxmann.com 65 · Section 68 · Section 10(38) · bogus long term capital gains · penny stock transactions · accommodation entry operators · unexplained cash credit addition · genuineness of share transactions · price rigging · investigation wing report

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 131Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)entry operatoraddition under section 68long term capital gainslong term capital gainaccommodation entrygenuineness of the transactionsection 10section 68

Judgments citing ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani

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

…) iv. Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT (2012) 340 ITR 161 (P&H) v. Usha Chandresh Shah Vs ITO (2014-TIOL-1459-ITAT-Mum) vi. Ratnakar M Pujari Vs ITO (2016-TIOL-1746-ITAT-Mum) vii. Arvind M Kariya Vs ACIT in ITA No. 7024/Mum/2010 viii. ITO Vs Shamim M Bharwani (2016) 69 Taxmann.com 65 (Mum) ix. CIT Vs Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) x. CIT Vs S. Ajit Kumar (2018) 93 taxmann.com 294 (SC) xi. Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1003 of 2017, order dated 12.03.2018 (Del. HC) xii. Kishore Kumar Vs CIT 62 Taxmann.com 215 (SC) xiii. Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT 351 ITR 143 (Del.) xiv. CIT Vs M. S. Aggarwal (2018) 93…

Sohanraj Uttamchand, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Dass, CITFor Respondent: 21.12.2017
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"ी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/CHNY/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The DCIT, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. PAN: AAAPU7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri Srinath Sridevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.M. Dass, CIT ""यथ" क"…