PAYAL SUKHRAMANI,SATNA vs. ITO WARD-2 , SATNA
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed
ITA 95/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 May 2025AY 2012-13
Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Payal Sukhramani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.128/3, First Floor, Satna Master Plan, Near Overbridge, Satna, Madhya Pradesh-485001 Pan:Bwdps3622L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 3.04.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ito, Ward-2, Stana Dated 9.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit (A) Order Is Bad In Law, Facts Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That The Ld Cit Appeals Failed To Appreciate That The Sale Of Shares Was For A Consideration Of Rs 6,15,550 Whereas Addition Made For Rs 24,25,650/- By Mistake. The Assessee Made Submission Against Ground No.2 Regarding Clerical Mistake & Also Informed For Rectification Application Filed On Filed Has Been Rejected. 3. That The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Sustaining Addition For Rs 24,25,650 U/S 68 Against Sale Of Shares Claimed As Exmpet U/S 10(38). 4. That The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Against Addition Made U/S 68 For Ay 2012-13. 5. That The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 1,23,263/- Against Alleged Commission Payment For Transaction In Shares. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Payal Sukhramani
For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 250Section 68
section 115BBE against addition made u/s 68 for AY 2012-13. 5. That the Ld CIT Appeals erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 1,23,263/- against alleged commission payment for transaction in shares.
1
A.Y. 2012-13
Payal Sukhramani
6. That the Ld CIT Appeals erred in sustaining the addition u/s 68 when the department relied upon
