PCIT v. Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan

453 ITR 520High Court2023#9824 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 68 Section 250 Section 69 Section 69C Section 10(38) of the Act Section 115BBE Section 131

Issues it is cited on

price rigging bogus long term capital gain bogus ltcg circular trading preponderance of probability penny stock section 10(38)section 260 long term capital gains entry operator addition u/s 68 agricultural income

Judgments citing PCIT v. Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan

SINDHUMATI RAMAVTAR PATHAK,BORIVALI MUMBAI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 32 3 MUMBAI PRESENTLY DY C I T CIRCLE 42 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4914/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak Acit-32(3) 4, Shree Bhalchandra Kripa Presently Cit, Circle Building, Daulat Nagar Road Vs. 42(3)(1) No. 3, Borivali East Kautilya Bhavan Bkc, Mumbai-400 066. Mumbai-51. Pan : Agbpp5972D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, Ld. ADVFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…com 269 (Gujarat) (vi) Pr. CIT Vs. Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar (2024) 169 taxmann.com 473 (Gujarat) (vii) Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Vs. Nilesh Jain (HUF) (2024) 163 taxmann.com 229(Madhya Pradesh) (viii) Pr. CIT Vs. Ritu Agarwal Shreeram (2023) 453 ITR 520 (Rajasthan) 5. There is no allegation of manipulation against the SEBI or department. Hence, Long Term Capital Gains cannot be treated as non genuine, (i) Pr. CIT vs. Indravadan Jain HUF [2023] 156 taaxmann.com 605 (Bom) 5 Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak (ii) Bhavin Vaghasia vs. ITO [ITA 2584/Mum/2018, order dated 16.06.2023 7. The assessee before us…

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

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

…Bench involving the same facts wherein the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.” 29. The Ld. AR of the appellant has relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan (453 ITR 520) which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Civil Appeal No 9/2011 of 2022 by order dated 24.04.2023 of the Department has been dismissed by the Apex Court. In the decided case, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal allowing the LTCG claim/exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on sale of scrip of M/s Sunrise Asea…

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

…ssion is consequential and is also liable to be deleted and accordingly, the same is also hereby deleted.” 15. The Ld. AR of the appellant has relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan (453 ITR 520) which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Civil Appeal No 9/2011 of 2022 by order dated 24.04.2023 of the Department has been dismissed by the Apex Court. In the decided case, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal allowing the LTCG 32 A.Y. 2014-15 Ajay Shankarlal Bankda claim/exemption u/s 10(38) of the…

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

…able to be deleted and accordingly, the same is also hereby deleted.” 29. The Ld. AR of the appellant has relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ritu 35 A.Y. 2011-12 Neeta Rajesh Lodha Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan (453 ITR 520) which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Civil Appeal No 9/2011 of 2022 by order dated 24.04.2023 of the Department has been dismissed by the Apex Court. In the decided case, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal allowing the LTCG claim/exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on sale of scrip of M/s Sunrise Asia…

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

…sion is consequential and is also liable to be deleted and accordingly, the same is also hereby deleted.” 28. The Ld. AR of the appellant has relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan (453 ITR 520) which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Civil Appeal No 9/2011 of 2022 by order dated 24.04.2023 of the Department has been dismissed by the Apex Court. In the decided case, the Hon’ble High 34 A.Y. 2013-14 Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal allowing the LTCG claim/exemption u/s 10(38) of th…

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

…sion is consequential and is also liable to be deleted and accordingly, the same is also hereby deleted.” 30. The Ld. AR of the appellant has relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan (453 ITR 520) which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Civil Appeal No 9/2011 of 2022 by order dated 24.04.2023 of the Department has been dismissed by the Apex Court. In the decided case, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal allowing the LTCG claim/exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on sale of scrip of M/s Sunrise Asia…

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

…sion is consequential and is also liable to be deleted and accordingly, the same is also hereby deleted.” 28. The Ld. AR of the appellant has relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan (453 ITR 520) which has been confirmed by the 34 A.Y. 2012-13 Sheetal Rupesh Savla Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Civil Appeal No 9/2011 of 2022 by order dated 24.04.2023 of the Department has been dismissed by the Apex Court. In the decided case, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal allowing the LTCG claim/exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act…

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

…n the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.” 33 A.Y. 2011-12 Sheetal Rupesh Savla 29. The Ld. AR of the appellant has relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan (453 ITR 520) which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Civil Appeal No 9/2011 of 2022 by order dated 24.04.2023 of the Department has been dismissed by the Apex Court. In the decided case, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal allowing the LTCG claim/exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on sale of scrip of M/s Sunrise Asea…

ALKA DILIP DOSHI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…submitted that an identical addition made by the AO in the above said was deleted by the Tribunal. He submitted that above said decision was upheld by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the very same case reported as PCIT vs. Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan (2023)(453 ITR 520)(Raj). 16. In our view, above said decision support the case of the assessee. We may also refer to the some of the decisions rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court. In the case of Shyam Pawar (54 taxmann.com 108) (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed as under:- “3. Mr.Suresh kumar seriously complained that such finding…

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

ITA 1519/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…so placed by the ld. Counsel on below mentioned judicial pronouncements: AYs: 2016-17& 2017-18 i. Pr. CIT vs. Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd.in ITA No. 43/2016 & 44/2016 ii. CIT vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi 268 CTR 351 (Raj) iii. Pr. CIT vs Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan 453 ITR 520 (Raj) 6.4. On the allegation that assessee executed offline purchase of shares of CTL to book bogus LTCG, ld. Counsel submitted that such a view is misconceived and without any basis, much less, off- market transactions are not illegal transaction as held in the decision by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia…

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

ITA 1518/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain & Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)