GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Snehlatha Agarwal, Bangalore Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
These appeals at the instance of various assessee’s are directed against three orders of the CIT(A), all dated 15.05.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2015-2016. Common issue is raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

Citation :
ITA 1584/BANG/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-C”, BANGALORE
Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member

ITA No.1584/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016

Snehlatha AgarwalH-803, ETA Garden Apartments Opp : Binny Mills, Magadi Road Bangalore – 560 023.PAN : AAJPA5577B.
(Appellant) 

vs.

The Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Bengaluru.
(Respondent)

ITA No.1585/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016

Santosh Devi AgarwalH-803, ETA Garden ApartmentsOpp : Binny Mills, Magadi Road Bangalore – 560 023.
PAN : ABIPA0545P.
(Appellant) 

vs.

The Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Bengaluru.
(Respondent)

ITA No.1586/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016

Anil Kumar Agarwal (HUF) H-803, ETA Garden Apartments Opp : Binny Mills, Magadi Road Bangalore – 560 023.
PAN : AAFHA6615J.
(Appellant) 

vs.

The Income Tax Officer
Ward 3(2)(1)
Bengaluru.
(Respondent)

Appellant by : --- None ---
Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale,
Standing Counsel for Department
Date of Hearing : 17.11.2020
Date of : Pronouncement : 18.11.2020

O R D E R

These appeals at the instance of various assessee’s are directed against three orders of the CIT(A), all dated 15.05.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2015-2016.Common issue is raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s order, wherein the consideration received for sale of shares was treated as bogus transaction and addition was made u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, by rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 10(38) of the I.T.Act.
 
3. Facts are identical in these cases, except for variance in figures, hence, the facts pertaining to ITA No.1584/Bang/2019 are narrated and the decision rendered therein would apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals also.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 26 November 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 9
downloaded 9 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags