Pr. CIT v. Prem Pal Gandhi

SUDHEER CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 23(3)(7), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2012-13

…n.com 177 (SC)] • PCIT vs. Indravadan Jain (HUF) [2023] 156 taxmann.com 605 • CIT vs. Shyam R. Pawar [2015] 54 taxmann.com 108 • PCIT vs. Ziauddin A. Siddique (ITXA No. 2012 of 2017) • CIT vs. Jamna Devi Agarwal [328 ITR 656] • PCIT vs. Prem Pal Gandhi [2018] 401 ITR 253 • Farzad Sheriar Jehani vs. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 9 • DCIT vs. Pavankumar Bachhraj Chandan [2024] 161 taxmann.com 674 • Mahendra Parekh vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1566/Mum/2023) • Uttam Jain (HUF) vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2427/Mum/2023) • Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3429/Mum/2019) • Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO [100 taxmann.com 172] • Aades…

MR PANKAJ GOSHAR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

…tions carried out in online platform of BSE were genuine or not. Hence the assessee's case before us stands on a better pedestal. 5.21. We find that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Prem Pal Gandhi reported in 401 ITR 253 (P&H) in Para 4 & 5 of its order and the PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Hitesh Gandhi in ITA NO. 18 of 2017 dated 16.02.2017 (P&H) in Para 5 & 6 of its order had rendered the similar decisions in favour of the assessee on identical facts and circumstances. 5.22. We find that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT vs Arun Kumar Agarwal H…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ DHANJI GOSHAR, MUMBAI

…tions carried out in online platform of BSE were genuine or not. Hence the assessee's case before us stands on a better pedestal. 5.21. We find that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Prem Pal Gandhi reported in 401 ITR 253 (P&H) in Para 4 & 5 of its order and the PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Hitesh Gandhi in ITA NO. 18 of 2017 dated 16.02.2017 (P&H) in Para 5 & 6 of its order had rendered the similar decisions in favour of the assessee on identical facts and circumstances. 5.22. We find that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT vs Arun Kumar Agarwal H…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ DHANJI GOSHAR, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

…tions carried out in online platform of BSE were genuine or not. Hence the assessee's case before us stands on a better pedestal. 5.21. We find that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Prem Pal Gandhi reported in 401 ITR 253 (P&H) in Para 4 & 5 of its order and the PCIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Hitesh Gandhi in ITA NO. 18 of 2017 dated 16.02.2017 (P&H) in Para 5 & 6 of its order had rendered the similar decisions in favour of the assessee on identical facts and circumstances. 5.22. We find that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT vs Arun Kumar Agarwal H…

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

…656) 29. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Ziauddin A Siddique [Income-tax Appeal No. 2012 of 2017, dated 4-3-2022] 30. Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Prem Pal Gandhi [2018] 94 taxmann.com 156/401 ITR 253 30. Decision of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in case of Shri Yogesh P Thakkar and Ors Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 1605 to 1611/Mum/2021 dated 03.02.2023 7. Whereas on the contrary, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 8. After having heard counsels from both the parties at length, we noticed that the L…

AHMED P. SURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 361/MUM/2024 (A.Y.2015-16) Ahmed P. Surani, B-403, Carnation CHS Ltd, Off Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai -400061. Vs. ACIT - 3(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AKYPS0271R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant by Shri Vimal Punmiya.AR Respondent by Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha.Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 01.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal i…

AMIT SAJJAN KUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AmitSajjanKumarGupta, DCIT-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, RoomNo.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABRPG2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ravikant Pathak.AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE -…

ANJU CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIALMEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Anju Chirania, Vs. ITO, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, JSS Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AFCPC9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant by Ms.Ritu Kamal Kishore & Shri.Ravi Ganatra. AR Respondent by Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha.Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The as…

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

…O. ITA No. 6070/Mum/2016 dated 18.07.2018. 6. Veena Chaturvedi Vs DCIT 156 taxmann.com 457(Mumbai Tribunal) 7. NS Choodamani Vs CIT (Kerala HC), 35 ITR 676 8. Pr.CIT Vs Parasben Kasturchand Kochar, (SC), 282 taxman. 301 9. Pr.CIT Vs Prem Pal Gandhi, (P&H HC), 401 ITR 253 10. Pr.CIT Vs Krishna Devi, (Delhi HC), 431 ITR 361 11. Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE (SC), Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006. 12. Chirag Tejprakash Dangi Vs ITO in ITA No. 3256/Mum/2022 dated 20-02-2024. 13. Surendrakumar B. Agarwal Vs CIT in ITA No. 3779/Mum/2023 dated 29-04-23. 14 Bhavesh K. Kubadia vs ITO in ITA No. 1490/Mum/2023 dated 19-03-2…

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

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No. 4543/MUM/2023 (A.Y.2011-12) ITO-26(1)(4), Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Vs 3 rd floor, 6 th Tower, Shop No.1, Muncipal Bldg, . Vashi Railywaystation, RA Kidwai Road, Wadala, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai -400037. Navi Mumbai-400703. PAN/GIR No. AABPJ5480E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya.AR Revenue by Ms.Rajeshwari Menon.Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 28.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR…

KETAN HARILAL MEHTA HUF BY ITS KARTA KETAN H MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-33(2)(2) MUMBAI PRESENTLY JURIDICTION WITH ITO 42(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ketan Harilal Mehta HUF Vs. ITO-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, KetanMehta)No.B/1101, BKC,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. PAN/GIR No. : AAEHK3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.AR Respondent by : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.DR Date of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against t…

SMT PAWANBEN PANNALAL GULECHA,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-18(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed on merits

…ich was not commensurate with the financial parameter of the said company is not a good ground for any kind of adverse inference. Further, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of in the case of Pr. CIT v. Prem Lal Gandhi [2018] 94 taxmann.com 156/401 ITR 253 (Punj. &Har.), wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that despite purchases made in cash, the gains arising on sale of shares cannot be treated as sham having regard to the facts and the circumstances of that case. Thus, mere rise of share price cannot be the sole ground for treating the transaction of sale of shares as bogus. Th…

SHRI PANNALAL HASTIMAL GULECHA,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-23(2)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed on merits

…ich was not commensurate with the financial parameter of the said company is not a good ground for any kind of adverse inference. Further, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of in the case of Pr. CIT v. Prem Lal Gandhi [2018] 94 taxmann.com 156/401 ITR 253 (Punj. &Har.), wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that despite purchases made in cash, the gains arising on sale of shares cannot be treated as sham having regard to the facts and the circumstances of that case. Thus, mere rise of share price cannot be the sole ground for treating the transaction of sale of shares as bogus. Th…

ROHIT DEVENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-33(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…2 ITA No. 3704/Mum/2023 Shri Rohit Devendra Goyal 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the denial of exemption of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed under section 10(38) of the Act and loan taken from the aforesaid party along with other disallowances. The additions/ disallowances against which the assessee is in appeal before us are as under: Additions of Rs. 49,85,630/- by treating the LTCG from sale of shares as Unexplained Cash Credits. The disallowance u/s 69C of the Act made on account of commission for obtaining LTCG entry amounting to Rs.2,49,281/- The addition U/s 68 of Rs.75,0…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIRAL SARAF MITTAL , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT – Central Circle – 2(2) v. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old CGO Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 PAN: AZBPS0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik Date of conclusion of Hearing : 23.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

…Act has been restored once basic documents relating to transaction are put in place and same remained thoroughly undoubted by any direct enquiry on part of AO. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncement amongst others 1. PREM PAL GANDHI (2018)401 ITR 253 (P&H) 2. Principal CIT vs Rungta Properties in ITA No.105 of 2016 dated 08 May, 2017 (Calcutta High Court) Page No. 10 Udayan Grover M/s. Alipine Investments in ITA No.620 of 2008 dated 26th 3. August, 2008 4. M/s. GTC Industries 164 ITD Page 1(ITA No.5996/Mum/1993) “E”, BENCH MUMBAI (SPECIAL BENCH) 5. Navneet Agarwal, Legal Heir of Late Kiran A…