Mr. Kush N Shah vs. ITO, Ward 21(2)(1), Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Mr. Kush N Shah, the appellant, filed an appeal against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-16. The appellant challenged the order dismissing his grounds relating to the addition of long-term capital gain on the sale of shares amounting to Rs. 1,53,89,356/- and treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant claimed that the Assessing Officer made the addition without considering the facts of the case and without providing cross-examination. The appellant submitted various documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground relating to the order passed by the Ld. A.O. u/s 143(3)?
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground of addition of long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 1,53,89,356/- treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
• 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground of addition of commission payment @ 8% (on Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares) amounting to Rs. 12,31,148/- treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961?
• 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing cross-examination which was categorically asked during the course of CIT(A) proceedings?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Sterling Finvst Private ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)

  Kolkata benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Anju Kesarwani Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Vipul Mittal vs. DCIT, Circle 11 (2)

• Mr. Jay Hansraj Chheda Vs. Income Tax Officer

• Jelly Samkit Doshi Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

  Ahmedabad bench

• Mintu Das vs. ACIT, Circle-28, Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed