PRAVEEN SITARAM AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-24(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

capital gains to the tune of ₹ 1,63,34,228/ In light of the above facts the amount of 1,63,34,228/--is hereby added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax 9 Praveen Sitaram Agarwal

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

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

term\ncapital gains which is exempt from Income\n==End of OCR for page 28== into white through the route of\nlottery winnings ete by stating that\n\"In this context it would be relevant\nto mention that in order to give\neffect to the recommendations of\nthe Direct Taxes Enquiry\nCommittee funder the\nChairmanship of Justice K.N,\nWanchoo, retired

SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act are initiated separately for all the issues of addition discussed above for underreporting of income.” (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, the Assessing Officer held that STCG (Non STT Paid) amounting to INR.1,92,80,432/- was taxable at the rate of 30% under Section 115AD of the Act and the STCG (STT Paid) of INR.5

ITO -24(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA, HUF, MUMBAI

long term capital gain of Rs.\n51,74,772/- which is 24 times the increase in cost price in less than 2 years\nand such huge rise in share price is not holding to any commercial principles\nand market factors. The Ld. AO, at page No. 30, para (e) has noted that the\nassessee has not been able to prove

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

long term capital gains for the beneficiary. The assessee has converted his undisclosed income into disclosed tax exempt income during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2014-2015. Hence the entire amount of Rs. 8,41,04,109/- purported to have been received by the assessee on sale of 97000 shares of Blazon Marble Ltd & 1000000 shares

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

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initi u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. with a view to concealment of income.” 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee challenged validity of the challenged validity

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

long term capital gain earned by him is genuine one. C. Further, reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Independent Media Pvt Ltd. {2012 24 Taxmann 276 Delhi, wherein it was held that addition u/s 68 id inevitable on unearthing of sham transactions. No further evidence needed to prove their sources