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

Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148

…rade the same cannot be considered non- genuine ignoring the facts that the purchases are accepted by Department in preceding assessments and purchases and sales are affected by cheques. In this regard Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mukesh Moralia [[2006] 6 SOT 247] and wherein it has been held as under: 10.3 Purchase and sale of shares outside the floor of Stock Exchange is not an unlawful activity. Off-market transactions are not illegal, ft is always possible for the parties to enter into transactions even without the help of brokers. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the transactions reported by…

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1360/MUM/2016[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

Section 244ASection 51

…e any question arises as to the period to be excluded, the action of the Assessing Officer in excluding certain period is also not acceptable. Respectfully following the principles laid down by the ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Videocon International Ltd (2006)6 SOT 247 (Mum) assessee (2006-TIOL-90-ITAT-MUM) and Artist Tree Pvt Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer (2005) 93ITD 603 (Mum), Assessing Officer's action cannot be justified on this reason also. However, as provisions of section 244A(3) are very clear, in our opinion, Assessing Officer has no option to vary period for granting increased interest when the period was…

Priyanka Tikmani, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-33(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2837/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06 Priyanka Tikmani V/S. Income Tax Officer, 2Nd Floor, 10, Lord Ward-33(1),10B, Sinha Road, Kolkat-71 Middleton Row, Kolkata [Pan No.Acxpj 1732B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri D.P. Baid, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Kolkata Dated 05.01.2013. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-33(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.08.2007 For Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Assessing Officer Erred In Law As Well S On Fact & Was Not Justified In Adding The Entire Gifts Of Rs.20,00,000/- As Cash Credit U/S. 69 Of The It Act On The Alleged Ground As Your Appellant Had Produced All Documentary Evidences As To The Genuineness, Creditworthiness & Proper Identity Of Each Of The Various Donors Before The Ld. Ao During The Course Of Assessment Proceeding. Similarly The Ld. Cit(A)-Xix, Kol Also Was Not Justified To Uphold/Sustain The Said Arbitrary Illogical & Or Unjustified Addition Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. That The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A)-Xix, Kol Were Not Justified In Not Giving Due Cognizance To The Fact Of The Case As Well As The Evidences Produced Before Them. The Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, Kol Was Also Not

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69

…n record and no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee in the event of non response of the alleged donors. In holding so, we draw our support and guidance from the order of ITAT Bengalore Bench in the case of Mukesh R Marolia vs. ACIT reported in 6 SOT 247 (Mum) wherein it was held as under:- “But, whatever it may be, an assessment has to be completed on the basis of records and materials available before the assessing authority. Personal knowledge and excitement on events, should not lead the Assessing Officer to a state of affairs where salient evidences are over-looked. In the present case, howsoe…

DCIT, 1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Smt Vimlesh Kumar Singh, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 21/BIL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Raipur Vs Late Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Through L/H Smt. Vimlesh Kumari Singh, Prop.M/S Manohar Engineering & M/S Sharda Engineering, Baikunth, District – Raipur Pan No. : Ahjps 0124 K (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Mrs. Shital Verma, Dr Assessee By : Shri K.P.Dewani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Raipur, Dated 08.02.2013 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “1. Whether In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,98,28,636/- Made By The Ao By Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Income From Undisclosed Sources.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Observed That The Shares On Sale Of Which Ltcg Of Rs.1.95,39,611/- Was Shown & Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act Was Claimed Were Held Barely For Little More Than One Year To Qualify The Same As Long Term Capital Asset. The Cost Of The Shares Was Rs.2,69,400/- & Sale Consideration Was Rs.1,98,28,636/-. He

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Dewani, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Shital Verma, DR

Section 10(38)

…s of Blue Chip India Ltd., were shown in the balance sheet attached therein and, therefore, the assessee has duly disclosed the transaction of purchase. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following cases: i. Mukesh R Morolia Vs. ACIT - (2006) 6 SOT 247 ii. Chandrakant Babulal Shah Vs. ITO in ITA No. 6108/Mum/2009 dated 15.12.2010. iii. CIT Vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal 328 ITR 656 He has further submitted that similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in all these decisions. In the case of Jamnadevi Agarwal, the Hon'ble High Court has held that even the statement of stock broker's denial o…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax01(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Ishwar Ispat Industries Pvt. Ltd, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 188/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs Shabna Parveen, DR

Section 68

…not be made by the AO in a routine manner merely on presumption, probabilities, suspicion and surmises since the same action of the AO degenerates the spirit for which the quality assessments were emphasized by the Board, (Mukesh R Marolia v. Add!. CIT [2006] 6 SOT 247 Mumbai). 12. If general/casual/routine observations of the AO are to be considered as material evidence for the purpose of framing an assessment, the AO shall have blanket and arbitrary powers to dispose of the scrutiny assessments according to his whims and fancies which is not the spirit of the circulars issued by the Board on scrutiny assessmen…

The ACIT, Circle- 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S. Balajee Structurals (India) Pvt. Ltd., Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 80/BIL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Abhishek Maloo Jain/P.C.Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit kumar Laskar, DR

Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-2011 ACIT, Cirlce-1(2), Vs. Balajee Structural (India) Central Avenue Building, Pvt.Ltd., Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) Ring Road No.2, Telibandha, Raipur (CG) PAN/GIR No.AABCB7575P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Ajit kumar Laskar, DR Assessee by : Abhishek Maloo Jain/P.C.Maloo, AR Date of Hearing : 09/01/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11 /01/ 2018 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against th…

Arvind Balkrishna Goregonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…R 278(SC), Diza Holdings 255 ITR 573(ker), Precision finance 208 ITR 265(Cal) , 187 ITR 596(Cal) etc, wherein it has been held that mere fact that transactions are through banking channels is of no consequence by itself. 4.2.4 The decision of Mukesh R Marolia 6 SOT 247(Mum) relied by Ld ARis not applicable to the appellant because in that case the primary reason to disbelieve the appellant was earning of huge profit in a short span of time and further there were contradictory statements wherein some brokers admitted that the transactions were genuine. But in the case of the appellant, besides the statement of Muk…

M/S Shree Bishandas Iron Works, Kolkata vs. The DCIT Cir-36, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1232/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09 M/S Shree Bishandas Iron Dcit, Circle- बनाम Works, 4 India Exchange 36,Kolkata / V/S. Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkta-001 [Pan No.Aanfs0164 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurbh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-11-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-12-2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Kolkata Dated 09.04.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.12.2010 For Assessment Year 2008-09. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri Surbh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Sole Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,17,47,513 On Account Of Commission Expenses Claimed By The Assessee. 3. Briefly Stated Facts Are That The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Iron & Steel Materials.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…he statement. Therefore under such facts & circumstances we are inclined to disagree with the findings of lower authorities. 6.4 Besides the above we also note that it has been rightfully held in the case of Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT, Range-15(2) [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bench 'F', Mumbai, that "an assessment has to be completed on the basis of records and material available before the assessing authority. Personal knowledge and excitement on events should not lead the assessing officer to a state of affairs where salient evidences are overlooked. " Further, The ITAT Mumbai in case of Chand…

Shri Prahlad S. Mehta L/H of Late Rajpal P. Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3) Now Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 796/AHD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ong term and short term capital gains in following cases which are relied on by ld. CIT(A): (a) Smt. Hamida J. Rattonsey vs. DCIT (b) ITO vs. Rasila N. Gada (c) Smt. Durgadevi Mundra vs. ITO (d) Sachin N. Morakhia vs. ITO (e) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. ACIT((2006) 6 SOT 247) (f) CIT vs. Mukesh R. Marolia (Bombay HC) (g) ITO vs. Truptic Shah (h) ACIT vs. ShriRavindrakumar Toshniwal (I) ITO vs. Smt. Navneet Mehra I.T.A Nos. 796 & 797/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2004-05 Page No 7 Prahlad S. Mehta & Najuben Rajpal Mehta vs. ITO 9.1 Following these precedents, the ITAT-Ahmedabad by following judgments, deleted similar additions made b…

ITO, Ward-32(4), Kolkata vs. Shri Shaleen Khemani, Kolkata

ITA 1945/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1945/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-32(4), Kolkata -Vs- Shaleen Khemani [Pan: Agapk 6810 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…be denied. " 12 Shaleen Khemani I.T.A. No. 1945/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (ii) Identical matter has been dealt with by the I. T.A. T , Mumbai Bench in the case of Mukesh R. Marolia vs. ACIT, which is relied upon by the assessee and reported in [2006]6 SOT 247 (Mum). In that case the A. O. observing that purchase and sale of shares were not reflected in records of Bombay Stock Exchange held that claim of the assessee regarding purchase of shares was bogus and no such shares were purchased by the assessee and, consequently, sale of shares was also bogus. The sale proceeds were, therefore treated as unexpl…

Comet Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5253/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Comet Investments Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-4(1), 2Nd Floor, Office No.3, Kothari Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, House, 5/7, Oak Lane, Above Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gokul Restaurant, Fort, Mumbai-400023 Pan: Aaacc2051Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay R. Singh (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 253Section 254(1)

…No.5253/M/2015- M/s Comet Investments Pvt. Ltd. Sr. Particulars Pg. No. No. 1. SLP rejected dt 27/1/2014 against Hon'ble Bombay High 1-5 Court Judgement CIT vs. Mukesh R. Marolia ITA No. 456 of 2007, dated 7th Sept. 2011. 2. Mukesh R Marolia vis. ACIT (2006) 6 SOT 247(Mum) 6-17 3. Hon'ble Bombay High Court Judgement CIT vs. Sharda 18 Credit P. Ltd. ITA No. 3090 of 2009, dated 12th Sept. 201l. 4. Dy. CIT vs. Sharda Credit P. Ltd. IT AT order dated 19-23 9/2/2009 5. Hon. Bombay High Court Order dt 5/1/2012 ITA NO 24 (L): 1739 of2010 in case of Shri Ravindra Kumar Toshniwal. 6. Shri Ravindra Kumar Toshniwal. ITAT o…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ue for such reliance, more specifically, when the assessee has categorically contended that the transactions were not entered into at the floor of the stock exchange. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mukesh R. Marolia vs Addl. CIT (2006) 6 SOT 247 (Mum.) order dated 15/12/2005 held as under:- This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. It is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)- XV at Mumbai on 24-12-2004 and arises out of the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is carrying on the business of m…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha B Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1237/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…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) 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…

Manish Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1236/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

Smt. Sumandevi Parmatmaprasad Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -10(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well assessee’s CO, both are dismissed

ITA 927/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147

…term and short term capital gains in following cases which are relied on by learned CIT(A): (a) Smt Hamida J. Rattonsey vs. DCIT (b) ITO vs. Rasila N. Gada (c) Smt. Durgadevi Mundra vs. ITO (d) Sachin N. Morakhia vs. ITO (e) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. ACIT ((2006) 6 SOT 247) (f) CIT vs. Mukesh R. Marolia (Bombay HC) (g) ITO vs. Truptic Shah (h) ACIT vs. ShriRavindrakumar Toshniwal (i) ITO vs. Smt. Navneet Mehra 9.1 Following these precedents, the ITAT – Ahmedabad by following judgments, deleted similar additions made by authorities below by holding that Short/Long Term Capital Gain offered by assessee were accommodati…

Ajay J Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 121/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151

…g more was required to be proved. The income generated from such sales was offered under the head ‘long term capital gain’ which proved that assessee had generated genuine capital gain. He also relied on the following decisions: 1. Mukesh R. Marolia vs. ACIT 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 2. DCIT vs. Ms. Indiramma 6SOT 261 (Bang) 3. I.T.A.Nos.2669 & 2670-M-06 in the case of Smt. Pushpa R. Shah & Shri Ramesh V. Shah vs. ITO 4. I.T.A.No.1718-M-06 & Ors. In the case of Shri Popatlal Bachubhai Nandu vs. ACIT & Ors. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly supported the order of the AO and the CIT(A). He also filed a letter dated 14-…

Kamladevi S. Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1957/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood,Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1957/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Kamla Devi S. Doshi The Income Tax Officer Flat No. 410, Shreepati Castle, Ward 16(3)(1), बिधम/ 208/210, 10Thkhetwadi Main Road, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk Vs. Mumbai 400004 Mumbai 400034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Affpd7183M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Vishwas Mundhe, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…P a g e | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘J’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD,JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1957/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Kamla Devi S. Doshi The Income Tax Officer Flat No. 410, Shreepati Castle, Ward 16(3)(1), बिधम/ 208/210, 10thKhetwadi Main Road, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk Vs. Mumbai 400004 Mumbai 400034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AFFPD7183M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3018/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Jawantraj Bhutaji Shah, HUF The Income Tax Officer…

Ankit P. Gupta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7517/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 7517/Mum/2013 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshan

Section 68

…] 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]. 8. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia [ITA No.456 of 2007] dated 07.09.201l. 9. Order of Hoh'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Mrs. Radhika Ravindrakumar Toshniwal [ITA No. 1331/Mum/2010] dated 13.03.2013 for AY. 2005-06. 10. Order of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of AClT v. Pinak…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…, Buniyad Chemicals and N.E. Electronics. For the details of the same, our attention was invited to paged 9 to 25 of the paper book. It was contended that the shares were purchased in earlier years. Reliance 3 Disha N. Lalwani was placed upon the decision in 6 SOT 247 (Trib.), which was approved by Hon'ble High Court in ITA No.456 of 2007. 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Purushottam Kumar, strongly defended the assessment order as well as impugned order by explaining the factual matrix of the present appeal as well as the search carried out at Mr. Mukesh Chokshi. It was explained that the Ld. Assessing…