ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act, without properly appreciating the fact that 3 payments amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- appreciating the fact that 3 payments amounting to Rs.1,30,000/ appreciating the fact that 3 payments amounting to Rs.1,30,000/ does not relate to the appellant, but to one does not relate to the appellant

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

u/s 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

ASHOK JASRAJ JAIN, HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Jasraj Jain, Huf, Acit-19(1), 45/12, Rajkotwala Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Bldg., 1St Carpenter Street, C.P. Tank, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaahj 0191 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

gain and bogus short term capital loss/bogus business loss through short term capital loss/bogus business loss through trading of shares of various penny stock companies. trading of shares of various penny stock companies. 2. The investigation conducted by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate The investigation conducted by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate The investigation conducted by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate revealed that

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

133A and 132 of the Income Tax Act. One of the operator Shri Devesh Upadhayay whose statement was recorded on oath u/s 131 of the I.T. Act on 01.05.2015. As per the statement the following companies are controlled and managed by Devesh Upadhyay to facilitate bogus LTCG/STCG which are also the exit providers in this case: SL No. PAN EXIT

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Capital Gain the department has conducted certain enquiries and gathered information to arrive at the conclusion that the said transaction was bogus. The salient issues unearthed during the search and survey, post search survey and during the course of assessment proceedings are inscribed as under :- During the course of survey at M/s. Shekhawati Poly Yarn Pvt Ltd the flagship company

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Capital Gain the department has conducted certain enquiries and gathered information to arrive at the conclusion that the said transaction was bogus. The salient issues unearthed during the search and survey, post search survey and during the course of assessment proceedings are inscribed as under :- During the course of survey at M/s. Shekhawati Poly Yarn Pvt Ltd the flagship company

VINOD L. GADHIYA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC5(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Capital Gains received by the assessee and others were bogus in nature. Similar statement has been given by Shri Anil Kumar a Kolkata based entry operator during the course of survey u/s 133A

DY CIT CC 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S HEMADARI MACHINE TOOLS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

gain filed their duly notarized retraction affidavits dated 26.09.2019, 27.09.2019 & 27.09.2019, respectively, and had clearly stated that their earlier statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act during the course of the survey proceedings should not be relied upon. Although, the A.O had in his remand report, dated 06.11.2019 requested the CIT(A) not to admit the retraction „affidavits

DY. CIT -34(1), MUMBAI vs. AMIT BURAKIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Cit-34(1), Amit Burakia, Kautilaya Bhavan, 8Th Floor, 1203-1204, Gardenia, B-Wing, Room No. 802, Bkc, Vs. Vasant Valley, Film City Road, Mumbai-400051. Malad (East), Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Abupa 6908 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Haridas Bhat, Ar Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022

capital gain to the tune of Rs. 4,07,16,372/ of Rs. 4,07,16,372/- being exempt u/s 10(38) of the IT Act. The scrip in which being exempt u/s 10(38) of the IT Act. The scrip in which the assessee claimed the LTCG is M/s PSIT Infra Ltd. The assessment was made after the assessee

KAMLESH GUPTA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kamlesh Gupta Dy. Commissioner Of 59, Mount Unique 62-A, Vs. Income-Tax (13)(3)(1) Peddar Road, Room No. 229, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 026 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aegpg6788R

Capital Gain (LTCG) of a scrip viz. M/s JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd., a penny stock company, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 was issued by the A.O on 31.03.2017. In response, the assessee vide his letter dated 25.04.2017 stated that his original return of income filed on 30.01.2012 may be treated

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

capital gain earned by the assessee was duly reflected in original return filed u/s 139(1) on 28/07/2010. Hence, this being non-abated assessment year, the returned income could not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that search action on Shri R.K.Kedia & others

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

capital gain earned by the assessee was duly reflected in original return filed u/s 139(1) on 28/07/2010. Hence, this being non-abated assessment year, the returned income could not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that search action on Shri R.K.Kedia & others

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

capital gain earned by the assessee was duly reflected in original return filed u/s 139(1) on 28/07/2010. Hence, this being non-abated assessment year, the returned income could not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that search action on Shri R.K.Kedia & others

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

capital gain earned by the assessee was duly reflected in original return filed u/s 139(1) on 28/07/2010. Hence, this being non-abated assessment year, the returned income could not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that search action on Shri R.K.Kedia & others

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

capital gain earned by the assessee was duly reflected in original return filed u/s 139(1) on 28/07/2010. Hence, this being non-abated assessment year, the returned income could not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that search action on Shri R.K.Kedia & others

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gain for AY 2004-05. However, in AY 2005-06, the Tribunal took a different view in assessee’s own case and held that the profit on sale of plot of land is to be assessee as business income. It means there are two view possible and once there are two views possible, the revision under section

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gain for AY 2004-05. However, in AY 2005-06, the Tribunal took a different view in assessee’s own case and held that the profit on sale of plot of land is to be assessee as business income. It means there are two view possible and once there are two views possible, the revision under section

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

capital gain for AY 2004-05. However, in AY 2005-06, the Tribunal took a different view in assessee’s own case and held that the profit on sale of plot of land is to be assessee as business income. It means there are two view possible and once there are two views possible, the revision under section