Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

…ame, stands deleted. The grounds of appeal,\nto that extent, stand allowed.\nReliance is also placed on following case laws where such purchase and sale were\nallowed.\n1. C.I.T Vs. Mukesh Marolia ITA 456 of 2007-Bombay HC\n2. Muksh R Morolia V/s Add CIT(2006)6 SOT 247\n3. ITO V/s. Mrs. Rasila N Gala ITA No.1773/Mum/2010\n4. CIT V/s Kan Singh Rathore ITA 192of 2014 (Rajasthan HC)\n5. M/s SBD Estate Private Limited V/s. ITO 584/Mum/2015\n6. Ms Farrah Marker V/s ITO ITA No.3801/Mum/2015 order dated 27/04/2016\n7. Mr.ArvindAsmal Mehta V/s ITO ITA No.2799/Mum/2015 order dated\n29/02/2016\n8. Smt Jyoti D Shah V/s ITO…

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

…operandi of bogus LTCG scheme is not relevant if the same is not substantiated Reliance is also placed on following case laws where such purchase and sale were allowed. 1. C.I.T Vs. Mukesh Marolia ITA 456 of 2007-Bombay HC 2. Muksh R Morolia V/s Add CIT(2006)6 SOT 247 3. ITO V/s. Mrs. Rasila N Gala ITA No.1773/Mum/2010 4. CIT V/s Kan Singh Rathore ITA 192of 2014 (Rajasthan HC) 5. M/s SBD Estate Private Limited V/s. ITO 584/Mum/2015 6. Ms Farrah Marker V/s ITO ITA No.3801/Mum/2015 order dated 27/04/2016 24 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. 7. Mr.ArvindAsmal Mehta V/s ITO ITA No.2799/Mum/2015 order dated 29/…

ALKA RAJESH VANIGOTA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-52, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…i of bogus LTCG\nscheme is not relevant if the same is not\nsubstantiated\nReliance is also placed on following case laws where such\npurchase and sale were allowed.\n52. C.I.T Vs. Mukesh Marolia ITA 456 of 2007-Bombay HC\n53. Muksh R Morolia V/s Add CIT(2006)6 SOT 247\n54. ITO V/s. Mrs. Rasila N Gala ITA No.1773/Mum/2010\n55. CIT V/s Kan Singh Rathore ITA 192of 2014 (Rajasthan HC)\n56. M/s SBD Estate Private Limited V/s. ITO 584/Mum/2015\n57. Ms Farrah Marker V/s ITO ITA No.3801/Mum/2015 order dated\n27/04/2016\n58. Mr.ArvindAsmal Mehta V/s ITO ITA No.2799/Mum/2015 order\ndated 29/02/2016\n59. Smt Jyoti D Shah V…

DCIT 19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAVAN KUMAR B CHANDAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…law. We hold that the Appeals do not raise any substantial question of law. They are accordingly dismissed. There would no order as to costs." 11. We may also gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Mukesh R Marolia (6 SOT 247) wherein on similar facts and circumstances the addition made by the AO on account of purported bogus LTCG derived on purchase/sale of shares (off-market) was deleted by observing as under: "10. We heard both sides in detail and perused rival contentions in the light of the records of the case and the paper book filed by the assessee. In the retur…

MR PANKAJ GOSHAR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

…g involved in any price rigging and also the exit provider. This onus is admittedly not discharged by the revenue in the instant case. 5.10. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mukesh RatilalMarolia vs Additional CIT reported in 6 SOT 247 (Mum ITAT) dated 15.12.2005 had held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the ld. AO to a state of affairs where salient evidences are overlooked. It was held that when every transaction has been accounted, documented and supported, it would be very difficult to brush aside the contentions of the assessee that he had pur…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ DHANJI GOSHAR, MUMBAI

…g involved in any price rigging and also the exit provider. This onus is admittedly not discharged by the revenue in the instant case. 5.10. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mukesh RatilalMarolia vs Additional CIT reported in 6 SOT 247 (Mum ITAT) dated 15.12.2005 had held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the ld. AO to a state of affairs where salient evidences are overlooked. It was held that when every transaction has been accounted, documented and supported, it would be very difficult to brush aside the contentions of the assessee that he had pur…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ DHANJI GOSHAR, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

…g involved in any price rigging and also the exit provider. This onus is admittedly not discharged by the revenue in the instant case. 5.10. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mukesh RatilalMarolia vs Additional CIT reported in 6 SOT 247 (Mum ITAT) dated 15.12.2005 had held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the ld. AO to a state of affairs where salient evidences are overlooked. It was held that when every transaction has been accounted, documented and supported, it would be very difficult to brush aside the contentions of the assessee that he had pur…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DIVESH ASHOK BAFNA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Divesh Ashok Bafna, Ward-20(1)(1), 302, C-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 303, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Arihant Apartment, Piramal Chamber, Dr. D.B. Marg, Lalbaugh, Parel, Mumbai Central, Mumbai. Mumbai. Pan : Atapb9065D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ecisions rendered by Tribunal and the Hon‟ble High Courts. Some of the decisions referred to by the Co-ordinate Bench are:- (a) Shri Yogesh P Thakkar (ITA No.1612/Mum/2021 dated 03-02-23); (b) Shyam Pawar (220 Taxman 256)(Bom); (c) DCIT vs. Mukesh R Moralia (6 SOT 247)(Mum); (d) CIT vs. Jamna Devi Agarwal (328 ITR 656)(Bom); (e) PCIT vs. Ziauddin A Siddique (ITA No. 2012 of 2017 dated 04-03-2022) (f) PCIT vs. Gaurav Bagaria (453 ITR 513)(Raj) Finally, the Co-ordinate Bench concluded as under:- “28. For the various reasons discussed in the foregoing and following the judgments cited above, more particularly of t…

SMT. SNEHA ANKIT SALECHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE , WARD, 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

…ictional High Court has held in the above said cases that the AO cannot make the addition simply relying upon the report given by the investigation wing. We may also refer to the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in the case of Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (6 SOT 247)(Mum), wherein it was held that the personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the AO to a state of affairs where salient evidences are overlooked. We notice that the above said decision of the Tribunal has been approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, vide its order dated 07-09-2011 passed in ITA No.456 of 2007. It is also noticed t…

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No. 4543/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2011-12) ITO-26(1)(4), Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Vs 3 rd floor, 6 th Tower, Shop No.1, Muncipal Bldg, . Vashi Railywaystation, RA Kidwai Road, Wadala, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai -400037. Navi Mumbai-400703. PAN/GIR No. AABPJ5480E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya.AR Revenue by Ms.Rajeshwari Menon.Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 28.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR…

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

…involved in any price rigging and also the exit provider. This onus is admittedly not discharged by the revenue in the instant case. 5.10. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mukesh Ratilal Marolia vs Additional CIT reported in 6 SOT 247 (Mum ITAT) dated 15/12/2005 had held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the ld. AO to a state of affairs where salient evidences are overlooked. When every transaction has been accounted, documented and supported, it would be very difficult to brush aside the contentions of the assessee that he had purchased shares and…

NAWAL BASUDEO AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

…TO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) iii) Lalit Mohan Jalan (HUF) vs. ACIT – ITA No. 693/Kol/2009 (Kol ITAT) (iv) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT – [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 31. We note that the ld. D.R. had heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bimalchand Jain in Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2017. We note that in the case relied upon by the ld. D.R, we find that the facts are different from the facts of the case in hand. Firstly, in that case, the purchases were made by the ass…

SHEELA ASHOK BAFNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-20(3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…n law. We hold that the Appeals do not raise any substantial question of law. They are accordingly dismissed. There would no order as to costs.” 12. We may also gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Mukesh R Marolia (6 SOT 247) wherein on similar facts and circumstances the addition made by the AO on account of purported bogus LTCG derived on sale of listed shares was deleted by observing as under: "10. We heard both sides in detail and perused rival contentions in the light of the records of the case and the paper book filed by the assessee. In the return of income file…

DCIT-19(1), INCOME TAX vs. PAVAN KUMAR B CHANDAN (E-FILED), MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed

…n law. We hold that the Appeals do not raise any substantial question of law. They are accordingly dismissed. There would no order as to costs." 11. We may also gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Mukesh R Marolia (6 SOT 247) wherein on similar facts and circumstances the addition made by the AO on account of purported bogus LTCG derived on purchase/sale of shares (off-market) was deleted by observing as under: "10. We heard both sides in detail and perused rival contentions in the light of the records of the case and the paper book filed by the assessee. In the return…