NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

transferred to some other account. (iv) It means that Bhanwarlal Jain Group companies are providing only accommodation entries and no genuine transactions. In the light of the above facts, the Ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.25 lakhs taken as loans/advances as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.2. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income

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

transferred into respondent's Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the Kolkata Stock Exchange.. P a g e | 12 A.Y. 2013-14 Saloni Girrajkishor Agarwal Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had also issued contract

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. QMAX SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

bogus/accommodation entries on loan of Rs.1,64,00,000/- from the following 7 parties related to Shri Pravin Kumar Jain as under: Sr. Name of the concern Amount(Rs.) Interest (Rs.) No. 1. Casper Enterprises P. Ltd. 24,00,000 14,597 (Ostwal Trading (I) P. Ltd.) 2. Duke Business P. Ltd. (JPK 20,00,000 28,932 Trading

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

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

transfer of shares in the aforesaid two companies. We therefore adopt the above extracted reasoning mutatis mutandis to delete the impugned bogus LICG addition of Rs 96,17,065/, Consequently the addition made towards unexplained expenditure on account of commission of Rs 48,085/- also stands automatically deleted.\"\n\n3.36 Apart from the above referred decisions, reliance is also place