Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Ito 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs Ninja Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai on 15 May, 2017

Time Media & Entertainment Llp (Earlier ... vs Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai on 18 June, 2019

The chart is reproduced in preceding para‟s of this order(page 33 of this order ) which is reproduced in judicial order passed by Mumbai tribunal in the case of Ninja Securities(supra) at page 29 of the order in the case of Ninja Securities(supra). Incidentally, the assessee had also incurred F&O loss which were inflicted by client code modifications in the Page | 50 I.T.A. No.6534/Mum/2017 month of March 2010 itself. These unusual and sudden spurt in client code modifications undertaken by brokers with NSE was subject matter of probe by SEBI/NSE. It is reported by NSE that aforesaid sudden spurt in client code modifications undertaken by brokers with Stock Exchanges in the month of March 2010 was with an intention to evade taxes. The client code modifications in the month of April 2010 fell substantially to Rs. 11882 crores(page 33 of this order), while the same was Rs. 21,896 crores in December 2009.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Abacus Edutech Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs Ito Ward, Luhiana on 22 April, 2021

In that view of the matter, the principle laid down in CITv. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. f20081 216 CTR (SC 195 got squarely attracted. The same had not been referred to while passing the order of rejection. The assessee, in its objections, had clearly stated that the said four companies had bank accounts and payments were made to the assessee-company through banking channels. The identities of the companies were not disputed. Under those circumstances, it would not be appropriate to require the assessee to go through the entire gamut of proceedings. It was totally unwarranted. "
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Anusha Finvest Pvt Ltd ,Jaipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 10 September, 2025

It was held that the "taxing authorities are required to put on the blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They are also entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality. (CIT v Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC)) 4.13 It was held by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of [ITO v. Ninja Securities (P) Ltd. Date of Judgement: 15.05.2017 (ITAT Mumbai) that no 9 ITA No. 985/JP/2024 Anusha Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT protection was available if client code modifications are tainted with collusive action & manipulations In the case of Time Media & Entertainment LLP v. ITO Date of Judgement: 18.06.2019-(ITAT Mumbai), addition of bogus F&O losses being inflicted by mis-use of Client Code Modifications [CCM] was upheld. The Assessing Officer received information from the office of DIT (I&CI) Mumbai, vide letter no. DIT(I&CI)/CCM/2014-15, dated 27.02.2015 through learned PCIT that some brokers were misusing the Client Code Modification facility in the F&O segments on NSE and had created non-genuine profit and loss. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that these Losses and Profits were given by these brokers to their different clients/beneficiaries according to their requirements. The Assessing Officer observed that clients had taken fictitious losses to set off against their profits with a view to reduce their tax liability. As per information received by the Assessing Officer, the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the Client Code Modification as the name of the assessee also appeared in the beneficiaries list who had taken fictitious F&O Losses through the broker Inventure Growth & Securities Ltd. (hereinafter called "Inventure"), during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment year 2010-11, to the tune of Rs. 31,98,597.50, which income as per Assessing Officer had escaped taxation. Further additions as undisclosed income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,59,930/- being @5% of alleged bogus F&O losses to the tune of Rs. 31,98,597.50 were made by the Assessing Officer towards commissions allegedly paid to the broker Inventure by assessee from undisclosed sources for obtaining these bogus F&O losses were made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of these F&O losses and further the brokers had confirmed in an enquiry made by Revenue under section 131(1A) having received brokerages on these bogus F&O Losses, vide reassessment order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. In this case there was an unusual and sudden spurt in client code modifications in the month of March 2010 undertaken by Brokers in Stock Exchanges. The assessee had also suffered F&O Loss of Rs.31,98,597.50 through Broker Inventure for transactions undertaken through NSE in the month of March 2010 which were inflicted by client code modifications undertaken by Brokers with Stock Exchanges and which were held to be fictitious losses by authorities below. The assessee transactions in F&O segment also happened in the month of March 2010 The transactions inflicted through client code modification incurred through Broker Inventure in the month of March 2010 itself were as high as 92.2% of total transactions executed by assessee with broker Inveriture on quantum of loss ratio basis in large number of client code modifications, there is no similarity between wrong code and correct code and secondly there are repetitive client code modifications.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, Ward-2(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad vs Toshali Cements Private Limited, ... on 16 June, 2017

5. It was the contention of DR that as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the belated payment of employee's contribution would be an income u/s. 2(24)(x). Therefore, the provisions of Section 43B are not applicable. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. He also further relied on the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in the case of ITO Vs. LKP Securities Ltd., in ITA No. 638/Mum/2012 dt. 17-05-2013 and the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., in ITA No. 1680/Kol/2010 dt. 07-01-2011 in support of the contention that the amount cannot be allowed u/s. 43B.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1