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 68Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 131Section 142(1)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus long term capital gainbogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)preponderance of probabilityperiod of holdinglong term capital gainspaper companyentry operatorcolourable deviceamalgamation

Judgments citing Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT

Income Tax Officer 4(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sajjan Kumar Bajoria, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7354/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7354/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Shri Sajjan Kumar Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2732-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7355/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Smt. Sushila Devi Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2731-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…CIT (ITA No. 5585/Mum2011 dated 04/05/2012). The appeal filed by the department against the said order stood dismissed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court which is reported at 54 Taxmann.com 108. Similar was the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Mukesh Marolia V/s CIT (6 SOT 247) Mumbai which was first approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and thereafter SLP filed by the department against the same stood dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court by way of CA No.20146/2012 dated 27/01/2014. Similar was the ratio of various other decisions as elaborated in the impugned order. In the above background, the additions made by Ld. AO were…

Smt. Shweta Agrawal, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Shweta Agrawal Pr.CIT 82, Ashok Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AESPA1653H Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 21.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short ‘Ld. Pr. CIT’)-2, Indore…

Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7648/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 s…

Ramesh Babulal Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbau

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7662/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 s…

Amit Mafatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5793/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 5793/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Amit Mafatlal Shah The Asst. Commissioner Of 78/80 Gora Gandhi Building, Income Tax, Circle 19(1), बनाम/ Cp Tank Road, C.P. Tank Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 004 (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabps5009A अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Michael Jerald, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.04.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…arned AR therefore submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer needs to be quashed. In defence officer arguments the learned AR’s specific decision as under: - 1. CIT vs. Mukesh Marolia ITA 456 of 2007-Bmbay HC 2. Muksh R Morolia Vs Add CT(2006) 6 SOT 247 3. ITO vs. Mrs. Rasila N Gala ITA No.1773/Mum/2010 8 | P a g e Shri Amit Mafatlal Shah. 4. CIT vs. Kan Singh Rathore ITA 192 of 2014 (Rajasthan HC) 5. M/s SBD Estate Private Limited Vs. ITO 584/Mum/2015 6. Ms Farrah Market V.s ITO ITA No.3801/Mum/2015 order dated 27/04/2016 7. Mr. ARvind Asmal Mehta Vs ITO ITA No.2799/Mum/2015 8. Smt. Jyoti D Shah…

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

…ITO 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) 34. 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…

Kamla Hardasani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6397/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Kamla Hardasani Income Tax Officer- J-310, Vardhaman Nagar, Jn. 23(2)(4), C-10 Vs. Of. R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. Mulund Pratyakshakar Bhavan (W), Mumbai-400080. (2Ndfloor),Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Abcph7731G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh S. Athavale, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh & Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh S. Athavale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh &
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…06 & 6107/M/2012) (Mum) 2. Kamlesh Mundra v. ITO (ITA No. 6248/M/2012) (Mum) 3. Jatin Ajmera v. ITO (ITA No. 5569/M/2014) (Mum) 4. ITO v. Rasila Gada (ITANo. 1773/M/2010) (Mum) 5. Hamida Rattonsey v. DCIT (ITA No. 5069/M/2009) (Mum) 6. Mukesh Marolia v. ACIT (6 SOT 247) (Mum) 7. CIT v. Mukesh Marolia (ITA No. 456 of 2007) (Bom-HC) 8. ACIT v. Vineet Sureshchandra Agarwal (ITA No. 1442/Ahd/2013) (Ahd) 9. Anantrai Shah v. ITO (ITA No. 1842/M/2012) (Mum) 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that in the following two cases the Tribunal has decided the issue on similar facts against the assessee. 1. Disha N. Lalwan…

Sri Kush Nahata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(3), 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

…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) Shri Kush Nahata Assessment Year:2014-15 (iv) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT – [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 12. We note that once the assessee has furnished all evidences in support of the genuineness of the transactions, the onus to disprove the same is on revenue. We rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1977] 1 SCC 816 (SC). In this case the Hon’ble Apex Court held t…

M/S Bihari Lal Malpani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

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

…09, Order dt. 22/01/2010 • CIT vs. Sudeep Goenka [2013] 29 taxmann.com 402 (Allahabad HC) • CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia IT Appeal No. 456 of2007 (Judgment of Bombay High Court dated 7th September, 2011) • Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT, Range-15(2) (2006) 6 SOT 247 (Mum) • CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal [2010] 328 ITR 656 (Bom) -CIT vs. Vishal Holding & Capital (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com (Delhi) • CIT vs. Mahesh chandra G. Vakil [2013] 40 taxmann.com 326 (Gujrat) • CIT vs. Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) & Others Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2011 and others- Jharkhand High Court (judgment dated 13.07.2012 • CIT vs. Sumitra D…

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

…ITO 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) 5.15. The ld AR also submitted that the ld AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act by concluding that the transactions of the assessee resulting in LTCG on sale of shares of KAFL were bogus relying on the statements of various persons recorded by Investigation Wing wherein these p…

Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…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) 12. The ld AR also submitted that the AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act by concluding that the transactions of the assessee resulting in LTCG on sale of shares were bogus relying on the statements of various unknown persons recorded by Investigation Wing wherein these persons…

Navin Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

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

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…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) 12. The ld AR also submitted that the AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act by concluding that the transactions of the assessee resulting in LTCG on sale of shares were bogus relying on the statements of various unknown persons recorded by Investigation Wing wherein these persons…

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

…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) 15. I 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…

Vasudha Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), 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

…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) 15. 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 as…

Shri Udit Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It)-2(1), 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

…ITO 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) 12. The ld AR also submitted that the AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act by concluding that the transactions of the assessee resulting in LTCG on sale of shares were bogus relying on the statements of various unknown persons recorded by Investigation Wing wherein these persons…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Prb Securities Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
Section 143(3)

…Order dt. 22/01/2010 • CIT vs. Sudeep Goenka [2013] 29 taxmann.com 402 (Allahabad HC) • CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia IT Appeal No. 456 of2007 (Judgment of Bombay High Court dated 7th September, 2011) • Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT, Range-15(2) (2006) 6 SOT 247 (Mum) • CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal [2010] 328 ITR 656 (Bom) -CIT vs. Vishal Holding & Capital (P.) Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com (Delhi) • CIT vs. Mahesh chandra G. Vakil [2013] 40 taxmann.com 326 (Gujrat) • CIT vs. Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) & Others Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2011 and others- Jharkhand High Court (judgment dated 13.07.2012 • CIT vs. Sumit…

Aditya Vikram Sureka, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(2), 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

…r/2009 (Agra ITAT) 11 Aditya Vikram Sureka HUF A.Yr. 2014-15 (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) 12. The ld AR also submitted that the AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act by concluding that the transactions of the assessee resulting in LTCG on sale of shares were bogus relying on the statements of various unknown persons recorded by Investigation Wing wherein these persons…

Smt. Madhu Killa, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, 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)

…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) 12. The ld AR also submitted that the AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act by concluding that the transactions of the assessee resulting in LTCG on sale of shares were bogus relying on the statements of various unknown persons recorded by Investigation Wing wherein these person…

Rukmini Devi Manpuria, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1724/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1724/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rukmini Devi Manpuria -Vs- Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Axapm 3836 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…of huge increase in share sale price had observed in the similar circumstances and decided in favour of the assessee. He placed reliance on the co-ordinate bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mukesh R Marolia vs Additional CIT reported in (2006) 6 SOT 247 (Mum.) dated 15.12.2005 wherein it was held as under:- 10.7 Therefore, we find that the explanations of the assessee seems to have been rejected by the assessing authority more on the ground of presumption than on factual ground. The presumption is so compelling that comparatively a small amount of investment made by the assessee during the previou…

ITO, Ward - 32(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Stuti Welfare Trust, Kolkata

ITA 1508/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1508/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward-32(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Stuti Welfare Trust [Pan: Aacts 8163 Q ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…of huge increase in share sale price had observed in the similar circumstances and decided in favour of the assessee. He placed reliance on the co- ordinate bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mukesh R Marolia vs Additional CIT reported in (2006) 6 SOT 247 (Mum.) dated 15.12.2005 wherein it was held as under:- 10.7 Therefore, we find that the explanations of the assessee seems to have been rejected by the assessing authority more on the ground of presumption than on factual ground. The presumption is so compelling that comparatively a small amount of investment made by the assessee during the previou…