BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

30 results for “capital gains”+ Bogus/Accommodation Entryclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi31Mumbai30Kolkata12Hyderabad6Bangalore4Ahmedabad3Raipur2Jaipur2Indore1

Key Topics

Section 14839Section 143(3)33Section 14732Section 10(38)31Section 6830Addition to Income22Section 271(1)(c)15Section 143(2)14Penny Stock11

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

ITA 2910/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

entries\nobtained amounting to Rs.3,03,05,713/- in shape of sale of\nshares of Capital Trade Links should not be added in your total\nincome for the year under consideration.” Further, while\ndrawing conclusion in para 7 for making the assessment, ld. AO\nagain writes in similar manner as “In view of the elaborate\ndiscussion made above, I hereby

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

Long Term Capital Gains10
Exemption10
Disallowance9

NARENDRA SHANTILAL BAPNA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-28(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4198/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Shantilal Bapna V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.DR)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz. astronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the relevant companies are based on mere conjectures. 7.2. Reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that the impugned transaction is bogus, sham and part

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3380/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

entry operator. Therefore, generation of\nLTCG through the process from purchase to receipt of cheque is\ntotally arranged and actually no capital gain arose, but assessee's\nown cash has been routed through different entities and ultimately\nreached to his hand by cheque in the disguise of sale proceeds of\nlisted security. Accordingly, the claim of assessee

NIKHIL ASHOK SHIVDIKAR,PAREL MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20 2 4 MUMBAI , LALBAUG PAREL

ITA 4639/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: him.

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

bogus/accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gains arising from purchase/sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. During the assessment

SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4639/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ( (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

bogus/accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gains arising from purchase/sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. During the assessment

SHRI VIKRAM N. CHANDAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz. astronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the relevant companies are based on mere conjectures. 7.2. Reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that the impugned transaction is bogus, sham and part

CHHAYA KETAN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 33(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6543/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Nishit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: \nShri Virabhadra Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 14Section 143(3)

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz.\nastronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the\nrelevant companies are based on mere conjectures.\n7.2. Reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation\nwing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify\nthe conclusion that the impugned transaction is bogus, sham and part

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4250/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz. astronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the relevant companies are based on mere conjectures. Manoj Kumar Agarwal., AY 2015-16 & 2014-15 7.2. Reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3264/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz. astronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the relevant companies are based on mere conjectures. Manoj Kumar Agarwal., AY 2015-16 & 2014-15 7.2. Reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that

REKHA RAJESH JOGANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Sashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 274Section 68Section 69C

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz. astronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the relevant companies are based on mere conjectures. 7.2. Reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that the impugned transaction is bogus, sham and part

ITO-24(3)(1),MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. RAMA RAJIV JAGDALE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3131/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz. astronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the relevant companies are based on mere conjectures. 7.2. Reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that the impugned transaction is bogus, sham and part

SALONI GIRRAJKISHOR AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3234/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarsaloni Girrajkishor Agrawal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1601/1602, Green Acre, बनाम –25(1)(1),Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri Bandra Kurla Complex, (West), Mumbai – 400 053, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anupa1692D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz. astronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the relevant companies are based on mere conjectures. 10.3. Also, reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that the impugned transaction is bogus, sham

DHARMENDRA JAYANTILAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-31(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3897/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz. astronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the relevant companies are based on mere conjectures. AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 10.3. Also, reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that the impugned

DHARMENDRA JAYANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-31(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3879/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

capital gain declared by the assessee, viz. astronomical increase in the price of shares, weak fundamentals of the relevant companies are based on mere conjectures. AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 10.3. Also, reliance placed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the report of investigation wing without further corroboration based on cogent material does not justify the conclusion that the impugned

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 612/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar/SatishFor Respondent: Shri Murli Mohan
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

capital gains on sale shares of M/s DB International during F.Y 2010-11 and various persons have taken loan from the assessee and M/s Evergreen Enterprises. The reasons recorded by the AO reads as under:- Reasons for reopening of the assessment in case of Nilesh Bharani (PAR- AABPB4581G for AY 2011-12 u/s. 147 of the Act 1. The assessee

ITO 11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. REALSTONE EXPORTS LTD, THANE

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2993/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ito-11(1)(2) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Room No.202, Aayakar Limited Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Marg, C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Mumbai-400020. Apartments, Taki Road, Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. Cross Objection No. 162/Mum/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Ito-11(1)(2) Limited Room No.202, Aayakar Vs. C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Apartments, Taki Road, Mumbai-400020. Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8504K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2017 For A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 68

gain comes with a cost. This cost is akin to commission being charged for services rendered which is in respect providing accommodation bill or entry. 41. As stated in the preceding paragraph, it is common knowledge that for providing accommodation entries, operators charge certain percentage of the quantum of transaction shown as their fees/ commission from the beneficiaries

CREATION PUBLICITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-

ITA 996/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, First Floor, Parekh Vora Circel-2(1)(1), Chambers, 66, Mumbai Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Vs. Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcc2192B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M. (DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

bogus/accommodation entries in order to enable the clients to claim speculative profit/loss, short term Assessment Year: 2008-09 capital gain

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore