How many judgments cite Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT?

139 judgments on BharatTax cite Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT (6 SOT 247), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 68, Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 69C, Section 131.

Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT

6 SOT 247Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#727 most cited

What is Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT authority for?

The department must substantiate its allegations of a bogus long term capital gain scheme; if not substantiated, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for purported bogus LTCG derived from the purchase/sale of shares cannot be sustained. An assessee's claim for long term capital gains exemption on share transactions should be allowed where documentation supports the transactions.

139

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT · 6 SOT 247 · Section 10(38) · Section 68 · bogus long term capital gain · LTCG share transactions · department must substantiate allegations · preponderance of probability · penny stock · onus of proof · assessee allowed share transactions · ITAT decision

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 68 Section 1961 Section 143(3)Section 69C Section 131 Section 142(1)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

price rigging bogus long term capital gain bogus ltcg penny stock section 10(38)preponderance of probability period of holding long term capital gains paper company entry operator colourable device amalgamation

Judgments citing Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT

Ajay Shankarlal Bankda, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2484/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2484/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ajay Shankarlal Bankda बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-16(2) B Wing 4301, Db Woods, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Gokuldham, Goregaon East, Maharshi Karve Marg Mumbai-400063. Road, New Marine Lines, Churchagate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpb2851J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,06,950/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…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.” 8. We may also gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Mukesh R Marolia (6 SOT 247) (affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in their order in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 07-09-2011 ) wherein on similar facts and circumstances the addition made by the AO on account of purported 20 A.Y. 2014-15 Ajay Shankarlal Bankda bogus LTCG derived on purchase/sale of shares (off-market) was deleted by observing as under: “10. We heard both s…

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

…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.” 22. We may also gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Mukesh R Marolia (6 SOT 247) (affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in their order in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 07-09-2011 ) 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 content…

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

…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.” 21. We may also gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Mukesh R Marolia (6 SOT 247) 22 A.Y. 2013-14 Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia (affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in their order in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 07-09-2011 ) 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…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

…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.” 23. We may also gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Mukesh R Marolia (6 SOT 247) (affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in their order in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 07-09-2011 ) wherein on similar facts and circumstances the addition made 26 A.Y. 2013-14 Sheetal Rupesh Savla 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 si…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

…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.” 21. We may also gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Mukesh R Marolia (6 SOT 247) (affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in their order in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 07-09-2011 ) 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 conten…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

…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.” 23. We may also gainfully refer to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Mukesh R Marolia (6 SOT 247) (affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in their order in ITA No. 456 of 2007 dated 07-09-2011 ) wherein on similar facts and circumstances the addition made 24 A.Y. 2011-12 Sheetal Rupesh Savla 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 sid…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…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 7. Mr.Arvind Asmal Mehta V/s ITO ITA No.2799/Mum/2015 order dated 29/02/2016 8. Smt Jyoti D Shah V/s ITO ITA No…

Komal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 645/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 645/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Komal Agarwal बिधम / Dcit, Central Circle 7(3) 203, Ugam, N.S Road No.9, Room No 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Ville Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400097 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ahwpr9295B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Harion TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 68

…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.” 17. 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 fil…

Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta बिधम/ Ito-31(2)(4) 1501, Anmol Enclave, Opp Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C- Vs. Patel Auto, Goregaon West, 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400062. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpg0969J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri Amit Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Shares M/S. Sunrise Asian Limited (Hereafter “M/S. Sunrise”) Of Rs.98,81,550/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). & Thus Denying Deduction U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,97,631/- As Commission For Arranging The Bogus Ltcg (2% Of Commission) U/S 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri AmitFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…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 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…

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

…Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (iii) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (iv) (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…

Vipul M Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO -17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipul M Shah (Huf) Vs. The Ito 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabhv3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Vimal Punamiya Respondent By : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

For Appellant: Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Gotimukul Santosh Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…igh Court in CIT V/s Shyam S.Pawar (54 Taxmann.com 108 10/12/2014) declined to admit revenue’s appeal since the revenue failed to carry forward the inquiry to discharge this basic onus. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in Mukesh R.Marolia V/s Addl. CIT (6 SOT 247 15/12/2005) held that personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the Assessing Officer to a state of affairs where salient evidences are over-looked. 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 had sol…

Neelesh Choudhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 68

…led evidences comprising of bank statements, confirmation of brokerage and ledger accounts prove that he had indeed paid and received the impugned sum in lieu of commodity transactions only. This tribunal’s in (2009) 30 SOT 44 Acchyalal Shaw v/s. ITO & (2006) 6 SOT 247 Mukesh R Marolia v/s. Addl. CIT, hold that the necessary inference in such a backdrop that it is aninstance of off market transactions only. We thus hold fact that both the lower authorities’ have erred in adding/treating assessee’s speculation income as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee succeeds in his former substantive gr…

Dy CIT Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. Hiraben Khantilal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 908/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘D’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 905/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. Disha Pankaj Shah DCIT, Central Circle-6(3) Room No. 1903 G-5, Mangal Kunj 19th Floor Jambli Gulli Air India Building Borivali West Nariman Point Mumbai-400 092. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : ALWPS7264B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 899/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. Bhavya Pankaj Shah DCIT, Central Circle-6(3) Room No. 1903 G-5, Mangal Kunj 19th Floor Jambli Gulli Air India Building Borivali West Nariman Point Mumbai-400 092. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : D…

Dy CIT Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. Disha Pankaj Lshah, Mumbai

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

ITA 905/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Kantilal Ramniklal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 903/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 898/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…tional 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 co- ordinate 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…

Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 576/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 574/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Keval H Seth, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 418/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar, Hon’Blekeval H. Seth V. Ito, Ward 16(2)(1), 17-D Malabar Apartment Matrumandir, Nepeansea Road Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400036 Mumbai- 400007 Pan: Afbps4180H

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…] dated 04.09.2015 for AY. 2003-04. 6. Order of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mayur M. Shah (HUF) v. ITO [ITA No. 2390/Mum/2013] dated 10.07.2013 for A.Y. 2003- 04. 7. Decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mukesh R. Marolia v. Addl. CIT [6 SOT 247]. 19 AY 2007-08 Keval H Seth 8. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri MukeshRatilalMarolia [ITA No.456 of 2007] dated 07.09.201l. 9. Order of Hoh'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Mrs. Radhika RavindrakumarToshniwal [ITA No. 1331/Mum/2010] dated 13.03.2013 for AY. 2005-06. 10. Order of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal…

Minkal K. Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO - 18(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1093/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1093/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Minkal K. Doshi बिधम/ Ito-18(2)(2) Room No. 11/B, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Vs. Pallanji House, 35, New Nariman Point, Mumbai- Charni Road, Khetwadi, 400021. Mumbai-400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiopd7813N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. N. Rao Revenue By: Shri Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.24,66,000/- Made By The Ao In Respect Of Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Claimed Of Rs.20,64,793/- Being Profit On Sale Of Rs.36,000/- Shares Of M/S. Greencrest (Earlier Known As M/S. Marigold Glass Industries Ltd.) & Claimed It As An Exempt Income U/S 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts Are That The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Filed On 25.09.2015 Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,01,450/-. The Return Filed Has Been Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter

For Appellant: Shri B. N. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nayana K. Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)

…iated by any error of law apparent on the fact of the record either.” 7. In an identical case, the addition on account of long term capital gain on sale of shares was deleted by holding it to be a genuine transaction in the case of Mukesh Marolia v. Addl. CIT-6 SOT 247 (Mum). Even in the said case, the AO had held that the long term capital gain shown by the assessee was unexplained since in the said case broker had confirmed in a statement before the AO that he never sold any shares to the assessee. However, taking note of the evidence as available on record, the Tribunal held that the AO had not disproved the g…