PCIT v. Smt. Krishna Devi

431 ITR 361High Court2021#1651 most cited

What is PCIT v. Smt. Krishna Devi authority for?

An assessment allowing exempt long-term capital gains under Section 10(38) is not erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the assessee has discharged their primary burden of proving transaction genuineness with documentary evidence. The Revenue cannot invoke Section 263 based on mere general investigation reports without direct material linking the assessee to bogus transactions or price rigging.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Smt. Krishna Devi · 431 ITR 361 · Section 263 · Section 10(38) · bogus long term capital gain · exempt capital gains · assessee burden of proof · genuineness of share transactions · investigation report · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Delhi High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 147Section 148Section 153ASection 131

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100price riggingbogus ltcgbogus long term capital gainsection 153(c)(1)section 10(38)section 94penny stockabatement of assessmentfresh tangible materialanonymous donation

Judgments citing PCIT v. Smt. Krishna Devi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 239/NAG/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…e Kolkata High Court. The aforesaid decision in fact is rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and is reported as 423 ITR 480 (Del). The aforesaid decision of Suman Poddar has been considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court itself in Krishnadevi reported as 431 ITR 361 (Del.), vide Para–12 of its judgement and the same is reproduced hereinabove at Para–23. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court itself has noted that aforesaid decision was on account of lack of evidence produced by the assessee therein to show the actual sale of shares in that case. In view of above, nothing adverse remain in respect to such decision reli…

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 220/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…e Kolkata High Court. The aforesaid decision in fact is rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and is reported as 423 ITR 480 (Del). The aforesaid decision of Suman Poddar has been considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court itself in Krishnadevi reported as 431 ITR 361 (Del.), vide Para–12 of its judgement and the same is reproduced hereinabove at Para–23. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court itself has noted that aforesaid decision was on account of lack of evidence produced by the assessee therein to show the actual sale of shares in that case. In view of above, nothing adverse remain in respect to such decision reli…

BHAWNA KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Bhawna Kapoor Vs. Acit Prop M/S Manish Circle 62(1) Handicraft 1196, Main Delhi Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk 3853 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

…l question of law. 6. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with no order as to costs." 9. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-12 v. Smt. Krishna Devi ITA 125/2020 dated 15.01.2021/[2021] 126 taxmann.com 80/279 Taxman 148/431 ITR 361 (Delhi) held as under: - P a g e | 9 Bhawna Kapoor (AY 2014-15) "8. Mr. Hossain argues that in cases relating to LTCG in penny stocks, there may not be any direct evidence in the hands of the Revenue to establish that the investment made in such companies was an accommodation entry. Thus the Court should take the aspect of human probabilities in…

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…l question of law. 6. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with no order as to costs." 9. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-12 v. Smt. Krishna Devi ITA 125/2020 dated 15.01.2021/[2021] 126 taxmann.com 80/279 Taxman 148/431 ITR 361 (Delhi) held as under: - "8. Mr. Hossain argues that in cases relating to LTCG in penny stocks, there may not be any direct evidence in the hands of the Revenue to establish that the investment made in such companies was an accommodation entry. Thus the Court should take the aspect of human probabilities into consideration that no prudent investo…

KDJP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 5900/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Kdjp Steels Private Limited, Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Plot No.50, Flat No.A-201, Delhi. Parshav Vihar, Patpar Ganj, Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aacck6905F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate; Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…ilities. AO, being part of the department has all wherewithal and requisite resources to conduct enquiries. Reliance is placed on following case laws- A) CIT vs. FCS International Marketing reported in 203 CTR 601 (P&H) B) Pr. CIT vs. Krishna Devi reported in 431 ITR 361 (Del) C) CIT vs. Nova Promoter and Finlease (P) Ltd. reported in 342 ITR 169 (Del) 5.8 The appellant is also placing on record the extract from the stock register from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 to establish that GC/GP Sheets which were of standard weight and were sold in numbers as Annexure ‘A’. The stock register shows that, assessee had sold J…

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

…05\nPaper Book II dated 18-09-2025\nS.N.\nName and Citation of the case\nPage No.\n1.\nPCIT vs Pramod Jain and Ors DBITA No.209/2018\n1-7\n2.\nPr. CIT Jaipur-2 vs Shri Sanjay Chhabra DBIT Appeal 8-11\nNo.22/2021\n3.\nPr. CIT -12 vs Krishna Devi and Ors [2021] 431 ITR 361 (Delh)\n12-17\n4.\nACIT vs Maveerick Commodity Brokers Pvt.Ltd ITA No.\n27/JP/2020\n18-79\n5.\nShri Parasmal Bhandari vs ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur ITA No.\n95/JP/2023\n80-89\n6.\nAmit Rastogi and Ors vs ITO, Ward 1(1), ITA Nos.2128,2129,\n2131 and 2132/Del/2018\n90-94\n2.3 On the other hand, the Id. DR supported the order of the Id.CIT(A)\nand submi…

ZALAVADIYA KALUBHAI MOHANBHAI, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 806/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountannt Member Assessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…liance is placed on followings: Jignesh Ramjibhai Patel vs. ITO - ΙΤΑ 452-454/Ahd/2018 Alpa Udaykumar Shah vs. ITOITA 391/Ahd/2018; Sanjay P. Mehta vs. DCITITA 509/Ahd/2018; Sejalben N. Vora and others - ITA 329-331/Ahd/2018; PCIT vs. Smt Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del). CIT vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 229 Taxman 67 (Rajasthan): CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal (2013) 213 Taxman 178 (Allhabad): CIT vs Anirudh N. Agarwal (2013) 219 Taxman 126 (Allhabad); Assessed was never confronted with the "report of Investigation Wing, i.e. material used against the assessee for making the impugned addition: AO has extens…

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

…r Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. decision of the Mumbai Tribunal would not come to the rescue of the revenue. Further, we find our view is further fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Smt Krishna Devi reported in 431 ITR 361 (Del); decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Smt Renu Agarwal 153 taxmman.com 578 and decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CCIT (OSD) Vs. Nilesh Jain (HUF) 163 taxmann.com 229, among others. Now we are left with a situation wherein, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has decided in fav…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 148/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…there was no company by name of 'N' Ltd. which was in existence at relevant time period, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 146/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…there was no company by name of 'N' Ltd. which was in existence at relevant time period, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 145/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…there was no company by name of 'N' Ltd. which was in existence at relevant time period, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 143/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…there was no company by name of 'N' Ltd. which was in existence at relevant time period, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 142/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…there was no company by name of 'N' Ltd. which was in existence at relevant time period, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 141/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…there was no company by name of 'N' Ltd. which was in existence at relevant time period, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 140/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…there was no company by name of 'N' Ltd. which was in existence at relevant time period, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANKUR AGRAWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 5179/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

…A). The part of the extract\nof the decision of the ld. CIT(A) from page No.174 to 189 is\nreproduced as under:-\n“16 Judgements of Hon'ble High Courts:-\n16.1 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT & Others\nvs. Krishna Devi & Others reported in (2021) 431 ITR 361:\n“ITAT Delhi Bench had deleted addition made u/s 68 of the\nAct in the case of assessee Smt. Krishna Devi. The\nDepartment went in appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt against such deletion. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nupheld the order of the ITAT in PCIT and Others vs. Krishna\nDevi and Others reported in (2021) 431 ITR 361. The Hon'bl…

LEELA TARACHAND KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(2)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2453/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarleela Tarachand Kothari, V/S. Income Tax Officer – 1St Floor, Naimal Niketan, बनाम 19(2)(1), Room No. 221, 221, Khetwadi Main Road, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 400 004, Mumbai – 400007, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaqpk2820K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms.Rutuja Pawar & Ms Saiyami Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…We hold that the Appeals do not raise any substantial question of law. They are accordingly dismissed. There would no order as to costs." P a g e | 11 A.Y. 2014-15 Leela Tarachand Kothari Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs Smt. Krishna Devi 431 ITR 361 (Del). The relevant paragraph is enclosed herewith: - "12. Mr. Hossain's submissions relating to the spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behavior and…

SHRI SANJAYBHAI RAMJIBHAI PATEL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

ITA 454/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri TusharHemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B ParmarFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 68

…ng the claim of LTCG. The Ld.AR relied upon the following decisions: i. AlpaUdaykumar Shah Vs. ITO-ITA 391/Ahd/2018 ii. Sanjau P Mehta Vs. DCIT-ITA No.509/Ahd/2018 iii. Sejalben N. Vora and others –ITA No.329-331/Ahd/2018 iv. PCIT Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi-(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del) v. CIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi-(2014) 229 Taxmann 67 (Rajasthan) vi. CIT Vs. UditNarain Agarwal-(2013) 213 Taxmann 178 (Allahabad) vii. CIT Vs. Anurudh N. Agarwal-(2013) 219 Taxman 126 (Allahabad) viii. Kishinchand Chellarram125 ITR 713 (SC) ix. PCIT Vs. Charterred Speed P. Ltd. –Tax Appeal No.126 & 126 of 2015. x. Andaman Timber Industries V…

SMT. SHITAL SANJAYBHAI PATEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5),, BHAVNAGAR

ITA 453/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri TusharHemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B ParmarFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 68

…ng the claim of LTCG. The Ld.AR relied upon the following decisions: i. AlpaUdaykumar Shah Vs. ITO-ITA 391/Ahd/2018 ii. Sanjau P Mehta Vs. DCIT-ITA No.509/Ahd/2018 iii. Sejalben N. Vora and others –ITA No.329-331/Ahd/2018 iv. PCIT Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi-(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del) v. CIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi-(2014) 229 Taxmann 67 (Rajasthan) vi. CIT Vs. UditNarain Agarwal-(2013) 213 Taxmann 178 (Allahabad) vii. CIT Vs. Anurudh N. Agarwal-(2013) 219 Taxman 126 (Allahabad) viii. Kishinchand Chellarram125 ITR 713 (SC) ix. PCIT Vs. Charterred Speed P. Ltd. –Tax Appeal No.126 & 126 of 2015. x. Andaman Timber Industries V…

SHRI JIGNESH RAMJIBHAI PATEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

ITA 452/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri TusharHemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B ParmarFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 68

…ng the claim of LTCG. The Ld.AR relied upon the following decisions: i. AlpaUdaykumar Shah Vs. ITO-ITA 391/Ahd/2018 ii. Sanjau P Mehta Vs. DCIT-ITA No.509/Ahd/2018 iii. Sejalben N. Vora and others –ITA No.329-331/Ahd/2018 iv. PCIT Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi-(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del) v. CIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi-(2014) 229 Taxmann 67 (Rajasthan) vi. CIT Vs. UditNarain Agarwal-(2013) 213 Taxmann 178 (Allahabad) vii. CIT Vs. Anurudh N. Agarwal-(2013) 219 Taxman 126 (Allahabad) viii. Kishinchand Chellarram125 ITR 713 (SC) ix. PCIT Vs. Charterred Speed P. Ltd. –Tax Appeal No.126 & 126 of 2015. x. Andaman Timber Industries V…

Showing 1–20 of 69 · Page 1 of 4