Suman Poddar v. ITO

423 ITR 480High Court2020#1365 most cited

What is Suman Poddar v. ITO authority for?

The Assessing Officer's detailed findings regarding bogus long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions, established through objective examination of facts and circumstantial evidence, should not be overturned by appellate authorities without a thorough investigation or fresh inquiry.

84

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Suman Poddar v. ITO · Section 10(38) · Section 68 · Section 133(6) · bogus long term capital gain · LTCG exemption · penny stock · price rigging · preponderance of probability · Assessing Officer investigation · appellate authority powers · Sumati Dayal · demat account statement

Also reported as

112 Taxmann.com 329

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 10(38)Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus ltcgbogus long term capital gainpenny stocksection 10(38)paper companyentry operatorpreponderance of probabilitylong term capital gainsclosely held companyperiod of holdingretraction of statement

Judgments citing Suman Poddar v. ITO

Chitra Avdhesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 239/NAG/2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) DCIT, Circle-4, Nagpur Shikha Indrakumar vs Agrawal, House No. 604, Near Santra Market, Empress Mill Road, Nagpur-440 018 PAN : AAJPC 3885 C Revenue Assessee Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Comm…

DCIT-CC-2(1), 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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 220/NAG/2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Indrakumar Ghisulal Nagpur vs Agrawal, 601, Near Santra Market, Empress Mill Road, Nagpur-440 018 PAN : AAJPC 3885 C Revenue Assessee Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Commiss…

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

…of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of t…

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

…of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of t…

Vaneet Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

…ITA No. 2607/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2607 /Del./2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Vs. ACIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi (Respondent) Vaneet Aggarwal, D-95, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi PAN: AGXPA8770A (Appellant) Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Shri K. Sampath, Adv, Shri V Rajkumar, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR 21/01/2026 13/03/2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM The Assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Com…

Vipul J. Modi HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 4188/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the ITAT. a) The appellant claims that the share of M/s ICVL Chemicals Ltd. was not a penny stock when the shares were sold. It was only post take over, the name of the company ICVL Chemicals Ltd. was changed to Ram Minerals & Chemicals Ltd. on 11.07.2014. During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld.AR of the appellant filed a chronology of events, which shows that they were holding shares of Intellivate Capital Ventures Ltd. (“ICVL”) from 2010 and the purchase consideration was

Section 10(38)Section 68

…se, the Ld.DR relied on the following cases : (a) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT-1, Nagpur [reported in (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 196] (b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar Vs. ITO [reported in (2019)) 112 Taxmann.com 329], which was later affirmed by SC in (2019) 112 Taxmann.com 330 (c) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sanjay Kaul Vs. PCIT in ITA No.203/2020 dated 29.07.2020 (d) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Pr.CIT, Kolkata Vs. Swati Bajaj in ITAT No.06/2022 6. The above judgements of Hon’ble Courts have held that where there is no financial worth w…

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 152/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

…n Of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v.ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of t…

Income Tax Officer, Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 151/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

…n Of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v.ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of t…

Udita Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2532/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaudita Gupta, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 29, 43/1, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Delhi – 110 054. (Pan : Advpa9481B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-30, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Case Of The Assessee Was Picked Up For Limited Scrutiny & During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee’S Claim Of Earning Capital Gain Amounting To Rs.57,11,085/- & Rs.46,95,755/- From Sale Of Shares Of M/S Yamini Investment Pvt. Ltd. & M/S. Goenka Business & Finance Ltd. Totaling Rs.1,04,06,840/- Were Examined. The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

…of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of t…

Archit Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Archit Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of B-41, Kailsah Colony, Income Tax, Circle 29, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension Pan: Aeupg2360R New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv, Ms.Monalisa Maity, Adv Revenue By Sh. Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 Order

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…n of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in SumanPoddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in SumatiDayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of th…

Udita Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2017/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…n of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in SumanPoddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in SumatiDayal v. CIT. (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of th…

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of t…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1), New Delhi vs. Girish Kumar Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5366/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 68Section 69

…Kalra. These case laws are more relevant as prices were manipulated from Rs. 2 to more than Rs. 1100 in the case under hands. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in eyes of law by not considering judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Suman Poddar VITO [2020] 423 ITR 480 Delhi) which has been achieved its finality as Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.11.2019 reported in [2019] 112 Taxmann com 330 (SC) has also affirmed the addition. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not exercising its power to investigate the matter thoroughly in case, if he is of the view of any lacking on the part of AO rather than placing…

Jaibhagwan Banarasidas Jindal, Jalna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

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

ITA 2016/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…aruna Garg, ITA 477/2022, dated 23-11- 2022, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that though Revenue has mentioned in the present appeal that the issue involved is covered by the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO 423 ITR 480, wherein appeal of the Assessee was dismissed taking judicial notice of the fact that there was an astronomical increase in the share price of a company which was not commensurate with the financial parameters of the said company, yet this Court finds that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi [ITA 125/2022] & connected I…

Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan, Bangalore vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ“ए”, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE श्री विक्रम सिंह यादव, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री परेश म. जोशी, न्यायिक सदस्य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM &SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA NO. 933/Chd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Krishan Kumar Jalan J-206, Purva Venezia Apartment, 2nd Floor, Mother Dairy Yelahanka, Bangalore-560064 बनाम The ITO Ward-1, Sirsa स्थायीलेखासं . / PAN NO: AFKPK8520J अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &…

Mr Pankaj Goshar, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1256/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. Α.Υ. Appellant Respondent 1224/Mum/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, 1101, Mont Blanc, 550, Jam-e-Jamshed Road, Matunga East, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G 1223/Mum/2024 2015-16 Mr. Pankaj Goshar, 1601, Mount Pleasant, 586, Lady Jehangir Road, Matunga, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. 1256/Mum/2024 2015-1…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

ITA 1224/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal For Revenue : Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. Α.Υ. Appellant Respondent 1224/Mum/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, 1101, Mont Blanc, 550, Jam-e-Jamshed Road, Matunga East, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G 1223/Mum/2024 2015-16 Mr. Pankaj Goshar, 1601, Mount Pleasant, 586, Lady Jehangir Road, Matunga, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. 1256/Mum/2024 2015-1…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

ITA 1223/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. Α.Υ. Appellant Respondent 1224/Mum/2024 | 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, 1101, Mont Blanc, 550, Jam-e-Jamshed Road, Matunga East, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G 1223/Mum/2024 | 2015-16 Mr. Pankaj Goshar, 1601, Mount Pleasant, 586, Lady Jehangir Road, Matunga, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. 1256/Mum/2024 |…

Rachna Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2531/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of t…