9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p much. The AO has failed to prove through any independent inquiry or relying on some material that the transactions made by the appellant through share broker were non-genuine or there was any adverse mention about the transaction in question . Simply because in the sham transactions bank a/c were opened and the appellant has also received short term capital gain in his account with that bank does not establish that the transaction made by the appellant were non genuine - denying the claim of short term capital gain made by the appellant before the AO is not approved. The AO is therefore, directed to accept claim of short term capital gain as shown by the appellant - Decided in favour of the assessee - D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 209/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of commission and disallowance of ₹ 5,000 made on account of legal expenses relating to bogus share transaction? Appeal No.214/2018 (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,11,29,534/-, made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A), made on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain as the companies in which the investment was made were bogus? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 55,568/- made on account of commission and disallowance of ₹ 10,000/- made on account of legal expenses relating to bogus share transaction? Appeal No.215/2018 (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,26,96,120/-, made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct was conducted as the business premises of M/s Royal Jewellers, Telipada of which assessee is 50% partner, on 21st and 22nd of January, 2008, during which various incriminating documents were found and impounded wherein several unaccounted transaction were recorded. Reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under Section 147 R/W 148 of the Act. Vide Show Cause Notice the assessee was specifically asked as to why the amount of ₹ 98,56,872/- should not be treated as an accommodation entry. 8. The assessee submitted reply to the Show Cause Notice contending therein that the share transactions are genuine and the Short Term Capital Gain of ₹ 98,56,872/- has been earned from the purchases and sales of shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that at the time of survey the appellant in his statement denied having made any transactions in shares. However, subsequently the facts came on record that the appellant had transacted not only in the shares which are disputed but shares of various other companies like Satyam Computers, HCL, IPCL, BPCL and Tata Tea etc. Regarding the transactions in question various details like copy of contract note regarding purchase and sale of shares of Limtex and Konark Commerce Ind. Ltd., assessee s account with P.K. Agarwal co. share broker, company s master details from registrar of companies, Kolkata were filed. Copy of depository a/c or demat account with Alankrit Assignment Ltd., a subsidiary of NSDL was also filed which shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Kumar Purohit. Copy of the order of settlement commission was submitted. The AO has failed to counter the objections raised by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Simply mentioning that these findings are in the appraisal report and appraisal report is made by the Investing Wing after considering all thematerial facts available on record does not help much. The AO has failed to prove through any independent inquiry or relying on some material that the transactions made by the appellant through share broker P.K. Agarwal were non-genuine or there was any adverse mention about the transaction in question in statement of Sh. Pawan Purohi. Simply because in the sham transactions bank a/c were opened with HDFC bank and the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
