Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
The Jcit Range-3, Indore vs Shri Amandeep Singh Bhatia, Indore on 28 April, 2023 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Durga Prasad More on 26 August, 1971

5. Ld. DR representing the revenue carried us to the orders of lower- authorities and made strong contentions. He submitted that the AO has rejected the exempted capital gain declared by assessee for two reasons, namely (i) The case-history of assessee is such that in earlier AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, then AO had rejected similar claim of capital gain made by assessee from shares of 21st Century Finance Ltd. and such action of AO was upheld in first-appeal.; (ii) The broker (Shri Shyam Lal Sultania) through whom the assessee had done transactions was penalized by SEBI for the period 09.06.2004 to 25.02.2005 and the assessee has purchased shares through that broker during that period only. He submitted that mere holding of shares in demat a/c and doing transactions through a/c payee cheque do not make the transactions genuine. Ld. DR placed reliance on (i) CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC), (ii) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), (iii) CIT Vs. P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1107 - Full Document

Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995

5. Ld. DR representing the revenue carried us to the orders of lower- authorities and made strong contentions. He submitted that the AO has rejected the exempted capital gain declared by assessee for two reasons, namely (i) The case-history of assessee is such that in earlier AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, then AO had rejected similar claim of capital gain made by assessee from shares of 21st Century Finance Ltd. and such action of AO was upheld in first-appeal.; (ii) The broker (Shri Shyam Lal Sultania) through whom the assessee had done transactions was penalized by SEBI for the period 09.06.2004 to 25.02.2005 and the assessee has purchased shares through that broker during that period only. He submitted that mere holding of shares in demat a/c and doing transactions through a/c payee cheque do not make the transactions genuine. Ld. DR placed reliance on (i) CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC), (ii) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), (iii) CIT Vs. P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1298 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Mohanlal P. Jain And Ors. on 26 August, 1975

5. Ld. DR representing the revenue carried us to the orders of lower- authorities and made strong contentions. He submitted that the AO has rejected the exempted capital gain declared by assessee for two reasons, namely (i) The case-history of assessee is such that in earlier AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, then AO had rejected similar claim of capital gain made by assessee from shares of 21st Century Finance Ltd. and such action of AO was upheld in first-appeal.; (ii) The broker (Shri Shyam Lal Sultania) through whom the assessee had done transactions was penalized by SEBI for the period 09.06.2004 to 25.02.2005 and the assessee has purchased shares through that broker during that period only. He submitted that mere holding of shares in demat a/c and doing transactions through a/c payee cheque do not make the transactions genuine. Ld. DR placed reliance on (i) CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC), (ii) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), (iii) CIT Vs. P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC).
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 148 - Full Document

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 11 vs Rajesh Bajaj (D) Th. Lrs Smt. Sapna Bajaj on 3 November, 2017

Regarding contention of Ld. DR that the said order was passed before decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in Swati Bajaj (supra) we observe that the facts of present appeal, as is evident from foregoing discussion, are so strong that we do not find any fallacy in the transactions done by assessee. Had there been any factor indicating that the assessee has involved in generating bogus capital gain, we would have certainly taken a different view. But this is not so in present case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the decision of Swati Bajaj is not applicable to present case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1