ACIT-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. QMAX SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

68 and settled judicial principles on bogus loans and accommodation entries. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing, in the interest of justice.” 3. We have considered the rival submission and have perused the material on record. 4. The assessee is a company

SWASTIK REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

bogus/accommodation entries. From the facts found by the authorities, it was clear that the amount of loan was advanced through the account payee cheques and PANs were also furnished. The amount has been repaid through account payee cheques and the lenders has sufficient funds in their bank accounts not by cash deposited on the preceding date or when the cheques

SWASTIK REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

bogus/accommodation entries. From the facts found by the authorities, it was clear that the amount of loan was advanced through the account payee cheques and PANs were also furnished. The amount has been repaid through account payee cheques and the lenders has sufficient funds in their bank accounts not by cash deposited on the preceding date or when the cheques

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

Bench: him.

bogus/accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gains arising from purchase/sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Shares’] of INR.51,92,689/- which was claimed

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

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

bogus/accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gains arising from purchase/sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Shares’] of INR.51,92,689/- which was claimed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 133A by the DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata to state that he had provided accommodation entries in the alleged penny scrip. 4.1. Assessee had submitted that transaction in the said shares were subjected to STT levy and consideration of sale and purchase for the said scrip had been routed through normal banking channel and no addition can be made without backing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus/accommodation entry as alleged by the ld. AO. It is also important to note that the operations and modus operandi of this regulated market does not in any way provide for any mechanism by which assessee can bring forth the identity of the buyers of his shares and their creditworthiness. Further, sale proceeds are received through the stock market process

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus/accommodation entry as alleged by the ld. AO. It is also important to note that the operations and modus operandi of this regulated market does not in any way provide for any mechanism by which assessee can bring forth the identity of the buyers of his shares and their creditworthiness. Further, sale proceeds are received through the stock market process

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 133(6) to the purchaser of the 6 Rama Rajiv Jagdale., AY 2014-15 shares sold by the assessing, referred to as “exit providers” which according to him remained un-complied. Ld. Assessing Officer also referred to statement of various persons who according to him were running the racket of providing accommodation entries by manipulating the share prices

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

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

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

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

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

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 of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI vs. ATUL RAMCHANDRA KSHIRSAGAR, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 68 of the Act was called for.” II. The Honb’le Allahabad High Court in case of Rahul Vineet Traders (41 taxmann.com 86) has held as under- “The submission is wholly mis-conceived. In the search operation carried on in M/s Ganga Ram Agarwal and Companies, there is no admission by the assessee therein that they were involved giving

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 133(6) to the purchaser of the shares sold by the assessing, referred to as “exit providers” which according to him remained un-complied. Ld. Assessing Officer also referred to statement of various persons who according to him were running the racket of providing accommodation entries by manipulating the share prices of alleged penny scrip of SRK Industries

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

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

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

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 of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

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

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

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

bogus/accommodation entry as alleged by the ld. AO. Also, the operations and modus operandi of this regulated market does not in any way provide for any mechanism by which assessee can bring forth the identity of the buyers of his shares and their creditworthiness. Further, sale proceeds are received through the stock market process into the pre-identified bank account

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

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

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

bogus/accommodation entry as alleged by the ld. AO. Also, the operations and modus operandi of this regulated market does not in any way provide for any mechanism by which assessee can bring forth the identity of the buyers of his shares and their creditworthiness. Further, sale proceeds are received through the stock market process into the pre-identified bank account

INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.MANDVI SALTS & LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

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

bogus/accommodation entries by arranging share capital through these two share subscribers. Ld. CIT(A) referred to various judicial precedents including that of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. [2017-18] taxmann.com 272 (Bom) to note that when requisite documents such as PAN card, bank accounts, balance sheet etc. were

REALSTONE EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

bogus/accommodation entries amounting to Rs.2,79,76,16,626/- that commission income of the assessee @ 1% of these transactions was 9 ITA No.3444/Mum/2014. M/s.Realstone Exports Limited. computed at Rs. 2,79,76,166/- which was added back to the taxable income of the assessee. 5. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and confirmed the action