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

capital gains against the sale of above penny stock shares. Through Through Through the the the said said said transaction, transaction, transaction, the the the assessee assessee assessee converted converted converted undisclosed income

SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

Income-tax (investigation), tax (investigation), Kolkatta. For ready reference, relevant part of the assessment order Kolkatta. For ready reference, relevant part of the assessme Kolkatta. For ready reference, relevant part of the assessme is reproduced as under: is reproduced as under: “14. Cash Trail by Investigation Wing, Kolkata: “14. Cash Trail by Investigation Wing, Kolkata: Investigation Wing, Kolkata has prepared

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

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

capital gain and to rebut that these are not in\nthe nature of accommodation entries.\niv. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer failed to collect and bring\non record the evidences from MrAnil B Agarwal which was later retracted\nback by him. If at all said evidences are collected, copies of same have not\nbeen provided

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Capital gains from penny stocks Delhi) cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 if the assesse has produced documentary evidence to prove the source, identity and genuineness of the transaction and the AO has not found any fault with it. The fact that the investigation dept has alleged that there is a modus operandi of bogus LTCG scheme

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain and that the gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed

NISHA YOGESH THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain and that the gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed

DINESHCHANDRA D. CHHAJED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain and that the gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CENT.CIR-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain and that the gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed

SHRI YOGESH P.THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain and that the gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed

SMT HARHSA NITIN THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain and that the gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed

SMT. HARSH A NITIN THAKKAR,RAIGAD vs. THE DCIT CENT. CIR -3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain and that the gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed

SHRI NITIN POPATLAL THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CITI CENT. CIR -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain and that the gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed

SHRI YOGESH P. THAKKAR,PANVEL vs. THE DCIT , CC-3(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the assessee Shri Dineshchandra D

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain and that the gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed

JT. CIT (OSD) ,CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. VERITAS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

capital gains by treating the entire sale proceeds as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. Further, the AO added an amount of Rs.10,03,836/- being alleged commission @ 5% expended towards arranging such LTCG as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) after taking note of the aforesaid facts adjudicated the legal issue

VERITAS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

capital gains by treating the entire sale proceeds as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. Further, the AO added an amount of Rs.10,03,836/- being alleged commission @ 5% expended towards arranging such LTCG as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) after taking note of the aforesaid facts adjudicated the legal issue

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

undisclosed income u/s 68. 4.1 The Learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of sale proceeds u/s 68 of Rs 2,41,00,000/- (actual sale proceeds is Rs. 2,40,39,775/-) on rejecting the appellants claim u/s 10(38) of long term capital gain

SARITA SUNIL MANTRI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarita Sunil Mantri, Ito-7(2)(1), Flat 3 & 4, Kamal Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 69 Walkeshwar Road, Opp. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Gopi Birla School, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adxpm 8070 E Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

Undisclosed interest income of Rs.2.380/-; 4.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses debited CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses debited

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

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

Capital Gain out of these purported share\nsale receipts during the financial year 2015-16 (A.Y. 2016-17)\nin his computation of total income (taxable at the rate of 60% as\nprovided u/s 115BBE). This would resultant of addition of Rs.\n3,03,05,713/- in the total income of the assessee.” Lastly, in\npara 8 while arriving