NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified- Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

ANJU CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when 17 Anju Chirania, Mumbai

AHMED P. SURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Section 260A" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of exemption for long-term capital gains and the addition made under Section 68 were

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

260A. Where the High Court dismissed the Department's appeal saying that no question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing relief to the assessee, and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that there was no adverse comment from the stock exchange or the company whose shares

KETAN HARILAL MEHTA HUF BY ITS KARTA KETAN H MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-33(2)(2) MUMBAI PRESENTLY JURIDICTION WITH ITO 42(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

AMIT SAJJAN KUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified- Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

SANJAY MADANRAJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 32(3) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Ssanjay Madanrajshah, Acit – 32(3) 316, New Link Way Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate, Near Chincholi Bkc Complex, Vs. Fire Brigade, Bandra (E), Malad (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajcps1858H (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

SANJAY V. JHAVERI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gains in the hands of the assessee’s brother was upheld by the Tribunal in respect of the same transaction. We find that in the memorandum of appeal filed under section 260A

KIRAN BHANWARLAL JOGANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekiranbhanwarlaljogani, Vs. Ito-5(3)(3), 1101-A Wing, Pratiksha Room.No.564,5 Floor, Tower,Rs Nimkar Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400008. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acopj7976N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Rajkumar Singh.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

capital gains. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the persons investigated , including entry operators or stock brokers, have named that the assessee was in collusion with them. In absence of such finding how is it possible to link their wrong doings with the assessee. In fact the investigation wing is a separate department which has not been

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 43B, consistent with the Department's stand. 2. On the fact and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 99,02,963/- towards interest paid to Income Tax Department during the previous year and failed to follow the decision of Mumbai ITAT

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

section 43B,\nconsistent with the Department's stand.\n\n2. On the fact and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in\nupholding the action of AO in making addition of Rs.99,02,963/- towards interest\npaid to Income Tax Department during the previous year and failed to follow the\ndecision of Mumbai ITAT

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. KAMLESH INDERPAL KUMAR, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

capital gain arising from sale of\nshares as unexplained cash credit. ING\nIn case of DCIT vs Sunita Khema in ITA nos 714 to 718/\nkol/2011 Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata has held that :-\nThe AO cannot treat a transaction as bogus only on the basis of\nsuspicion or surmise. He has to bring material on record to\nsupport his finding

DCIT CC-8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OSCAR INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. Oscar Infra Pvt Ltd Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, Office No. 707, 7Th Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Floor, Everest Nivara, Churchgate, Mumbai – Infotech Park, Plot No. 400020. D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Pan/Gir No. Aabco0152H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains (LTCG) earned from the sale of shares of JMD Telefilms Ltd, which have been accepted by the Coordinate Benches of Hon'ble Tribunal. In the case of Shri Mahaveer Kanwarlal Ranka Vs ACIT (ITA No. 224 & 965/Mum/2024), dated 29-11-2024, wherein it was held as under: 6. We have heard the parties and perused the material available

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SUNITA CHAUDHARY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

260A of\nthe Act, before the Hon'ble High Court?\"\n2. \"Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the\nLd. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 2,92, 12,400/-\nbeing the bogus LTCG claimed by the assessee was treated as\nunexplained investment and added to the total income

RATAN BHAUBALI BHALWANKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-16(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmr. Ratan Bahubali V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Bhalwankar बनाम Income Tax – 16(3), C/O – 2Nd Floor, Gita Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - Building, Sion Circle, 400021, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 022, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpb7285Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVAADA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as well as Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

260A of the Act." 9.8.4 This is supported by the decision of decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Harjeev Agarwal reported in 241 Taxman 199 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself does not constitute incriminating material The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed as well as Cross Objections of the assessee are\ndismissed as infructuous

260A of the\nAct.\"\n9.8.4 This is supported by the decision of decision of Delhi High\nCourt in the case of CIT Vs Harjeev Agarwal reported in 241\nTaxman 199 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the\nitself does not constitute incriminating material The relevant\nfinding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD , MUMBAI

260A of the Act.\"\n9.8.4 This is supported by the decision of decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Harjeev Agarwal reported in 241 Taxman 199 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself does not constitute incriminating material The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under