LEKHRAJ JASRAJ JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

133A of the I.T. Act on vari operators who were indulging in trading in shares of penny stock operators who were indulging in trading in shares of penny stock operators who were indulging in trading in shares of penny stock companies. It was found during the search and survey that the operator companies. It was found during the search

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

capital gain on script M/s. Moryo Industries Ltd. (MIL) it was submitted that the assessee had purchased the 1,00,000 shares @25 per share through preferential allotment scheme from the company and he had paid Rs. 25.00,000- from its bank account on 16.10.2012 maintaining in ING Vysya bank by RTGS and said share allotted to assessee

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

133A of the Act on the share brokers and has doubted the earning of long term capital gains on shares. Further the AO has issued the summons u/sec 131 of the Act on the assessee on 26.11.2008 and the statement was recorded. Further the AO find that there is no correlation of price rise and the financial/ fundamental statements

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DY CIT CC 4(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. RAJESH OMPRAKASH AGRAWAL, THANE

In the result ground number 1

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dcit(Cc)4(3) Rajesh Omprakash Agrawal R No. 1921, 19Th Floor, Air 16 Sai Shyam Chhaya Kopar India Bldg, Nariman Point, Road, Dombivali West, Vs. Thane-421202 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit(Cc)4(3) Rajesh Omprakash Agrawal R No. 1921, 19Th Floor, Air 16 Sai Shyam Chhaya Kopar India Bldg, Nariman Point, Road, Dombivali West, Vs. Thane-421202 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adypa5448F Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Daga, Ashok Bansal Revenue By : Ms Ridhi Mishra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2023

capital gain. 05. During post search proceedings, AO alleged that seized material contains certain incriminating transactions and other information pertained to the assessee. The residential premises of the assessee at Dombivali West, Thane was also covered under section 133A

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. 2015 GROVER FAMILY TRUST, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 94(7) were not applicable to the investors. vii. The new investors infuse money into this scheme, as per their requirements to ensure that they get desired short term capital losses. viii. While accounting the breakup of NAV on the dates of investments, the fund house credits the IER account instead of UPR which is strictly against the guidelines

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. CMS COMPUTERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 94(7) were not applicable to the investors. vii. The new investors infuse money into this scheme, as per their requirements to ensure that they get desired short term capital losses. viii. While accounting the breakup of NAV on the dates of investments, the fund house credits the IER account instead of UPR which is strictly against the guidelines

NEETA RAJESH LODHA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

section 147 of the Act; and the AO noted that the assessee had shown long term capital gains (LTCG) on sale of Shares of M/s Tuni Textile Mills Ltd (hereinafter M/s TTML) which assessee claimed to be exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. According to AO, assessee has shown to have received Rs.2,61,43,231/- from sale

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SANTOSH VIMLESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the BSE under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations 1997 and under BSE under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations 1997 and under BSE under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

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

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) was conducted on 22.10.2019. In the course of survey, Mr. Rishabh Agarwal, the Director of M/s RIL, was specifically required to explain the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act in relation to the gains derived on sale of listed shares of M/s RIL sold by the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CC 5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. WELLKNOWN BUSINESS VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

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

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) was conducted on 22.10.2019. In the course of survey, Mr. Rishabh Agarwal, the Director of M/s RIL, was specifically required to explain the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act in relation to the gains derived on sale of listed shares of M/s RIL sold by the assessee

KOMAL AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 645/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Komal Agarwal बिधम / Dcit, Central Circle 7(3) 203, Ugam, N.S Road No.9, Room No 655, 6Th Floor, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Ville Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parle (W), Mumbai-400097 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ahwpr9295B (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

capital gain, etc. The statement as referred by the AO of Shri Vikrant Kayan recorded under section 133A on 09.06.2014 is subsequent

SHEETAL RUPESH SALVA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-20(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

section 147 of the Act; and the AO noted that the assessee had shown long term capital gains (LTCG) on sale of two (2) scrips of M/s KGN Industries 2 A.Y. 2011-12 Sheetal Rupesh Savla Limited (hereinafter M/s KGN) & of M/s Arya Global Shares and Securities Limited (hereinafter M/s AGSSL), which assessee claimed to be exempt

AMARJIT KAUR SURINDER SINGH KOCHHAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleamarjit Kaur Surinder Vs. Ito Ward-12(1)(1), Singh Kochhar, Aayakar Bhawan, 4, Plot No.667, 4Th Floor M.K.Road, Satguru Sundari, Mumbai-400020. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Pan/Gir No. : Agspk6461F Appellant .. Respondent

Capital Gain is on the basis of the statement of Shri Harshvardhan Kayan and also of two more persons viz. Shri Nand Jain and Shri Suresh Khemka. 6.2 We have also gone through the statement of Shri Harshvardhan Kayan and it is palpable that nowhere in the statement, Shri Harshvardhan Kayan has made any reference to the name

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

133A(2A) was undertaken in 27 entities of M/s Sugee Group including the assessee on 12.03.2024. During the course of survey various details and information related to the various real estate projects were called for in order to verify the compliance with regard to the issue of tax deduction under section 194IC. On verification of the documents the AO noticed

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

133A(2A) was undertaken in 27 entities of M/s Sugee Group including the assessee on 12.03.2024. During the course of survey various details and information related to the various real estate projects were called for in order to verify the compliance with regard to the issue of tax deduction under section 194IC. On verification of the documents the AO noticed

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

133A(2A) was undertaken in 27 entities of M/s Sugee Group including the assessee on 12.03.2024. During the course of survey various details and information related to the various real estate projects were called for in order to verify the compliance with regard to the issue of tax deduction under section 194IC. On verification of the documents the AO noticed