SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera

6 SCC 368Supreme Court of India2016#1481 most cited

What is SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera authority for?

The mere quantity of shares traded is insufficient to establish manipulation or fraudulent practices in share transactions. Direct evidence of collusion or fraudulent practice by the assessee is necessary to draw an adverse inference.

77

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera · Section 10(38) · Section 69C · bogus long term capital gain · share manipulation · direct evidence of fraud · collusion · onus of proof · adverse inference · retracted statement · capital market fraud

Also reported as

66 Taxmann.com 288

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 69CSection 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 245c(1)section 36(1)(ii)retraction of statementsettlement applicationbogus share capitalbogus long term capital gainsection 131(1)section 271aabsubstantive assessmentonus of proofpreponderance of probabilityretracted statement

Judgments citing SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nand Kishore Agarwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/22/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…resulted in a wrong answer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gopal Prasad Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/153/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…resulted in a wrong answer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kol vs. Ramakant Beriwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/60/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…resulted in a wrong answer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. M/S Girish Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/157/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…resulted in a wrong answer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same…

Pr CIT 9 Kolkata vs. Girish Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/156/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…resulted in a wrong answer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. Gopal Prasad Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/151/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…resulted in a wrong answer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kolkata vs. Swati Bajaj

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/6/2022HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…resulted in a wrong answer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same…

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/3/2021HC Calcutta07 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…resulted in a wrong answer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…resulted in a wrong answer. The correct question that the learned Tribunal should have asked itself is whether the assessee was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the investigation 26 (2016) 6 SCC 368 27 (2018) 9 SCC 1 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 35 of 150 report. To explain the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus S K Sharma 28. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI Versus M.J. James for the same…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…t providers, was also rejected by observing that online trading by itself could not be sacrosanct, if the cumulative facts of the case points towards large scale manipulation of the same as observed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SEBI V/s Kishore R. Ajmera (2016 6 SCC 368) and again reiterated in SEBI V/s Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 207 Com Cases 443 (SC). 5.8 Proceeding further, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has also not been able to explain the unusual increase in the prices of the scrip of SMIL and also could not justify investment decision in the scrip and therefore, the claim was rightly rejected as…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…t providers, was also rejected by observing that online trading by itself could not be sacrosanct, if the cumulative facts of the case points towards large scale manipulation of the same as observed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SEBI V/s Kishore R. Ajmera (2016 6 SCC 368) and again reiterated in SEBI V/s Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 207 Com Cases 443 (SC). 5.8 Proceeding further, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has also not been able to explain the unusual increase in the prices of the scrip of SMIL and also could not justify investment decision in the scrip and therefore, the claim was rightly rejected as…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…t providers, was also rejected by observing that online trading by itself could not be sacrosanct, if the cumulative facts of the case points towards large scale manipulation of the same as observed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SEBI V/s Kishore R. Ajmera (2016 6 SCC 368) and again reiterated in SEBI V/s Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 207 Com Cases 443 (SC). 5.8 Proceeding further, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has also not been able to explain the unusual increase in the prices of the scrip of SMIL and also could not justify investment decision in the scrip and therefore, the claim was rightly rejected as…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…t providers, was also rejected by observing that online trading by itself could not be sacrosanct, if the cumulative facts of the case points towards large scale manipulation of the same as observed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SEBI V/s Kishore R. Ajmera (2016 6 SCC 368) and again reiterated in SEBI V/s Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 207 Com Cases 443 (SC). 5.8 Proceeding further, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has also not been able to explain the unusual increase in the prices of the scrip of SMIL and also could not justify investment decision in the scrip and therefore, the claim was rightly rejected as…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…t providers, was also rejected by observing that online trading by itself could not be sacrosanct, if the cumulative facts of the case points towards large scale manipulation of the same as observed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SEBI V/s Kishore R. Ajmera (2016 6 SCC 368) and again reiterated in SEBI V/s Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. [2018] 207 Com Cases 443 (SC). 5.8 Proceeding further, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has also not been able to explain the unusual increase in the prices of the scrip of SMIL and also could not justify investment decision in the scrip and therefore, the claim was rightly rejected as…

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

…assessee to confront the said parties. As against this, the assessee’s position that that the transactions were genuine and duly supported by various documentary evidences, could not be disturbed by the revenue. 7. The case law of SEBI V/s Kishore R. Ajmera (6 SCC 368) as relied upon by Ld. Sr. DR during the course of hearing has been rendered in the context of penalty imposed on brokers who were found to be indulging in circular trading. However, the facts are different here since the allegations of Ld. AO are not backed by any cogent material to establish the role of the assessee in manipulating the share pric…

Shri Ramachandran Ananthan Pothi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1088/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…011 vide order dated 8.2.2018). The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- “42. In this case it was also held that in the absence of direct proof of meeting of minds elsewhere in synchronised transactions, the test should be one of preponderance of (2016) 6 SCC 368 probabilities as far as adjudication of civil liability arising out of the violation of the Act or the provision of the Regulations is concerned. 46. Considering the reversal transactions, quantity, price and time and sale, parties being persistent in number of such trade transactions with huge price variations, it will be too naïve to hold that t…

Vickey Venilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2599/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 68

…011 vide order dated 8.2.2018). The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- “42. In this case it was also held that in the absence of direct proof of meeting of minds elsewhere in synchronised transactions, the test should be one of preponderance of (2016) 6 SCC 368 probabilities as far as adjudication of civil liability arising out of the violation of the Act or the provision of the Regulations is concerned. 46. Considering the reversal transactions, quantity, price and time and sale, parties being persistent in number of such trade transactions with huge price variations, it will be too naïve to hold that th…