9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsequently, it was also held by both the Authorities that addition under Section 68 of the Act was not called for. We find that the impugned order has been passed relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of “Mukesh R. Marolia” [2005 (12) TMI 457 - ITAT MUMBAI] and the findings are essentially findings of facts. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. - Decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of Income Tax Act,1961, was received from share trading activities as L.T.C.G. and entitled of exemption u/s.10(38) of Income Tax Act,1961 ? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal, Mumbai"H" Bench Mumbai was justified on relying the decision of Mr.Mukesh Ratilal Marolia decided by the Jurisdictional High Court of B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of one Mr.Mukesh Chokshi that he had given various accommodation entries to various parties. 4. On first appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his order dated 24.12.2009 allowed the respondent's appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the Assessee- Respondent had received sale consideration for its shares through banking channels. Moreover, it was also n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order holds that purchase and sale of the shares made by the respondent - assessee were genuine transaction and addition made under Section 68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer was not warranted. 6. We find that both, the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have concurrently arrived at the conclusion that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares done by the respondent - assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
