Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 118 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Vimalchand Jain vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 April, 1997

Meghraj Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs Dcit, Jaipur on 7 March, 2018

The decisions replied upon the ld. DR in case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case as the said decision is in respect penny stock purchase by the assessee from a persons who was found to be indulged in providing bogus capital gain entries whereas in the case of the assessee the shares were allotted to the assessee by the company at par of face value.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Smt. Sabreen, Kanpur vs Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kanpur on 20 July, 2021

From the facts of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain supra, we find that (i) in that case, the broker company through which the shares were sold did not respond to AO's letter regarding the names and address and bank account of the person who purchased the shares sold by the assessee; (ii) Moreover, at the time of acquisition of shares of both the companies by the assessee, the payments were made in cash; (iii) The address of both the companies were interestingly the same;
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Badresh Mansukhlal Dodhia, Mumbai vs Acit Circle-1, Kalyan on 6 January, 2021

The decisions replied upon the ld. DR in case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case as the said decision is in respect penny stock purchase by the assessee from a persons who was found to be indulged in providing bogus capital gain entries whereas in the case of the assessee the shares were allotted to the assessee by the company at par of face value. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances when we hold that the order of the Assessing Officer treating the long term capital gain as bogus and consequential addition made to the total income of the assessee is not sustainable. Hence, we delete the addition made by the AO on this account."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ritu Sanjay Mantry, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(4), ... on 4 April, 2019

v. The Tribunal has while coming to its conclusion relied on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v/s Pri.CIT. In this regard, it is worth noting that the hearing in the case of the Appellant was concluded on 30.11.2017 whereas the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied on by the Tribunal was passed on 16.12.2017. The Appellant therefore, did not have any opportunity whatsoever to deal with the said judgement, since the same was not available at the time of hearing nor was the Appellant made aware of the same post the hearing.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Mehta, Kolkata vs Acit, Circle - 36, Kolkata, Kolkata on 28 September, 2018

In a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs Pr.CIT by their order dated 10th April, 2017 have upheld the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench dated 18.07.2016 in ITA No. 61/Nag/2013 in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs ITO, Ward-4(2), Nagpur, wherein it was held that on the facts emergent in the case, and the preponderance of probabilities, entire Capital Gains claims were to be treated as fictitious and bogus.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 48 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ito - 33(1)(1), Mumbai vs Smt Ranjana Subhash Shinde, Mumbai on 13 December, 2022

"It would be pertinent to address the case law relied upon by the Id. DR before us o the decision of Hon'ble Bombay high Court(Nagpur Bench) in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v Pr CIT(Nagpur) reported at (2018) taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) dated 10.04.2017 on the impugned issue From the facts of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain (supra), we find that (i) in the case, the broker company through which the sharwes were sold did not respond to the AO's letter regarding the names and address and bank account of the person who purchased the shares sold by the assessee. (ii) Moreover, at the time of acquisition of shares of both the companies by the assessee, the payments were made in cash, (iii) The address of both the companies were interestingly the same; (v) The authorized signatory of both the companies were also the same person. (v) The purchase of shares of bothe the companies was done by that assessee through broker, GSSL and the address of the said broker was the address of the two companies. Based on these crucial facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered the decision in favour of the revenue. None of these factors were present in the facts of the assessee before us. Hence it could be safely concluded that the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court supra is factually distinguishable."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito Ward - 2(3), Ghaziabad vs Shalini Gupta, Ghaziabad on 16 May, 2024

2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida has Rs. 17,05,198 erred in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,11,173/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act without considering the facts brought on record. Reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Udit Kalra Vs ITO, Ward-50(1) in ITA No. 220/2019 & CM No. 10774/2019 dated 08.03.2019 and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court(Nagpur Bench) in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. Pr.CIT-1, Nagpur( Income Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2017).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishnu Kanmt Chokhani, Guwahati vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 14 June, 2024

The Appellant has referred to various decisions of various Tribunals and High Courts in which decisions have been given in favor of persons (similar appellants) who have earned LTCGs by transactions in Penny Stock. However, in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases of Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs. Union of India and Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Rakhi Trading Private Ltd. [2018 (2) TM1 580 - Supreme Court of India] and also in view of judgements of the Hon'ble Delhi'High Court in case of Pr. CIT-6, New Delhi vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 49/2018, in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT and by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Udit Kalra vs. ITO by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, on which the appeals of Appellants with similar cases have been dismissed by various Hon'ble courts, I respectfully beg to disagree with the various judgements/rulings given in favour of such appellants on the grounds of non-allowance of opportunity for cross examination, contrived veracity on account of transactions in electronic platform etc. 9 I.T.A. No. 376/GTY/2019; Assessment Year: 2015-16; Kavita Chokhani I.T.A. No. 377/GTY/2019; Assessment Year: 2014-15; Kamla Devi Chokhani I.T.A. No. 378/GTY/2019; Assessment Year: 2015-16; Kamla Devi Chokhani I.T.A. No. 379/GTY/2019; Assessment Year: 2015-16; Vishnu Kant Chokhani I.T.A. No. 380/GTY/2019; Assessment Year: 2015-16; Brahmadutt Chokhani I.T.A. No. 62/GTY/2020; Assessment Year: 2015-16; Vishnu Chokhani and Sons I.T.A. No. 421/GTY/2019; Assessment Year: 2014-15; Brahmadutt Chokhani and Sons I.T.A. No. 422/GTY/2019; Assessment Year: 2015-16; Brahmadutt Chokhani and Sons With tax evaders, middlemen, stock brokers etc. spread across the entire length and breadth of India^ it is impossible for the Assessing Officer to reach out to each and every place and person and collect evidence, serve summons etc. to frame a case based on principles of "beyond reasonable doubt", against the Appellant. The only way out to bring such tax evaders to justice is to build a case on the principles of Preponderance of Probabilities which in this case, is writ large in the transactions undertaken by tax evaders in penny stocks. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer since in this case sham transactions have been undertaken by the Appellant in the penny stocks of Company/Companies with no tangible/intangible assets and since, on a personal note, I categorize this transaction in penny stocks as the biggest tax fraud scam in the history of independent India. The latin maxim "minaturinnocentibus gui parcitnocentibus", meaning "he who spares the guilty threatens the innocent"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next