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.

How many judgments cite Suman Poddar v. ITO?

84 judgments on BharatTax cite Suman Poddar v. ITO (423 ITR 480), spanning 2021 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Suman Poddar v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 10(38), Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 142(1).

Suman Poddar v. ITO (423 ITR 480)

Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Kantilal Ramniklal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 903/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘D’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 905/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. Disha Pankaj Shah DCIT, Central Circle-6(3) Room No. 1903 G-5, Mangal Kunj 19th Floor Jambli Gulli Air India Building Borivali West Nariman Point Mumbai-400 092. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : ALWPS7264B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 899/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. Bhavya Pankaj Shah DCIT, Central Circle-6(3) Room No. 1903 G-5, Mangal Kunj 19th Floor Jambli Gulli Air India Building Borivali West Nariman Point Mumbai-400 092. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : D…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 898/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘D’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 576/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 574/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Vs. DCIT, CC-6(3) Pankaj Kantilal Shah G-5, 1st Floor Mumbai Mangal Kunj Jambli Gulli Borivali West Mumbai-400 092. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 898/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. Pankaj Kantilal Shah DCIT, CC-6(3) Mumbai G-5, 1st Floor Mangal Kunj Jambli Gulli Borivali West Mumbai-400 092. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN : AKQPS8236A Assessee by Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain Department by Ms. Riddhi M…

Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 576/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘D’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 576/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 574/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Vs. DCIT, CC-6(3) Pankaj Kantilal Shah G-5, 1st Floor Mumbai Mangal Kunj Jambli Gulli Borivali West Mumbai-400 092. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 898/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. Pankaj Kantilal Shah DCIT, CC-6(3) Mumbai G-5, 1st Floor Mangal Kunj Jambli Gulli Borivali West Mumbai-400 092. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN : AKQPS8236A Assessee by Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain Department by Ms. Riddhi M…

Pankaj Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 574/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘D’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 576/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 574/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Vs. DCIT, CC-6(3) Pankaj Kantilal Shah G-5, 1st Floor Mumbai Mangal Kunj Jambli Gulli Borivali West Mumbai-400 092. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 898/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. Pankaj Kantilal Shah DCIT, CC-6(3) Mumbai G-5, 1st Floor Mangal Kunj Jambli Gulli Borivali West Mumbai-400 092. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN : AKQPS8236A Assessee by Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain Department by Ms. Riddhi M…

Shri Ashnuth Goyal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ward -1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

…f the assessee, the AO has simply relied upon the information stated to have been available with him without independently verifying the details. The ld. AR has also brought to my notice through its written submission that judgment in the case of Suman Poddar 423 ITR 480 has already been distinguished by Hon’ble Delhi High Court itself in the case of PCIT Vs. Krishna Devi in ITA No. 125/2020 and issue was decided in favour of assessee. During the course of hearing ld. DR has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Swati Bajaj of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and submitted that the report of Investigation Wing…

Shri Arnav Goyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena,Addl.CIT

Section 10(38)Section 68

…Apex court but while dismissing the SLP hon’ble Apex court has not decided the issue on merits and by mere dismissal of SLP it cannot be said that the ratio laid down by hon’ble high court become final. Moreover, the judgment given in the case of Suman Poddar 423 ITR 480, has already been distinguished by hon’ble Delhi high court itself in the case of PCIT Vs. Krishna Devi in ITA No. 125/2020, wherein it is held that: “S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stock: The fact that there was an astounding 4849.2% jump in the share price within two years, which is not supported by the financials, does not justify t…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 66/VIZ/2021[20105-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [PAN : AARPW2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओ…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhaptnam vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 65/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarpw2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.65/Viz/2021 & 66/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mattapalli Ramgopal Circle-1(1) 25-8-246, Main Road Visakhapatnam Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [PAN : AARPW2133K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओ…

Karishma Ajay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalekarishma Ajay Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward – 21(2)(1) 218A/219, Shah Nahar Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Bk M.K.Road, Kher Marg, Mumbai-400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. : Agapa3857D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singhanand.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghAnand.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Pr. CIT Vs. Karuna Garg, ITA No. 477/ 2022 has observed at page2 para3 read as under: Karishma Ajay Agarwal, Mumbai. 3. 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…