Delhi in Suman Poddar v. Income Tax Officer 99

NEENA KAILAS JADHAV,THANE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.901/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.901/PUN/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Neena Kailas Jadhav, Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Vasan Vihar Row House Society, Aurangabad Vasant Vihar, Pokhran Road-2, Thane 400 610 Maharashtra PAN : AAFBPJ3950J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 18.04.2024 Date of pronouncement : 19.04.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Ce…

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJIKARANJI, KOLHAPUR vs. SPLICE BIOTECH PVT LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

…e case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj, 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) after making reference to the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manish D. Jain, 120 taxmann.com 180 (Mad.) and PCIT vs. Prabha Jain, 439 ITR 304 (Mad.) had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer had cogently brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. 9. There is yet one more reason as to why we are inclined t…

RAJENDRA BABULAL MALU,HUF,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

…0(38) of the Act. In a case involving identical facts of the case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court after making reference to the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manish D. Jain, 120 taxmann.com 180 (Mad.) and PCIT vs. Prabha Jain, 439 ITR 304 (Mad.) had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer had cogently brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. 10. There is yet one more reason as to why we are inclined…

ARCHANA RAJENDRA MALU,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

…0(38) of the Act. In a case involving identical facts of the case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court after making reference to the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manish D. Jain, 120 taxmann.com 180 (Mad.) and PCIT vs. Prabha Jain, 439 ITR 304 (Mad.) had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer had cogently brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. 10. There is yet one more reason as to why we are inclined…

RAKHI DINESHKUMAR RUNWAL,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1821/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rakhi Dineshkumar Runwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. 72, Satyam, Preetisudha Nagar, Mantha Road, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Afzpr4123B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 27.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Was Filed On 27.11.2015 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.423/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax

…0(38) of the Act. In a case involving identical facts of the case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court after making reference to the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manish D. Jain, 120 taxmann.com 180 (Mad.) and PCIT vs. Prabha Jain, 439 ITR 304 (Mad.) had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer had cogently brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. 7 9. There is yet one more reason as to why we are incline…

JAYESH SUNILKUMAR BHANDARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.284/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jayesh Sunilkumar Bhandari, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Nashik. Shop No.5 & 6 Pushpum, Plaza Jijamata Road, Saraf Bazar, Near Dhahi Pool, Nashik- 422001. Pan : Anzpb5202D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 10.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From The Business Of Dealing In Gold. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 30.11.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.13,78,310/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income

…0(38) of the Act. In a case involving identical facts of the case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court after making reference to the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manish D. Jain, 120 taxmann.com 180 (Mad.) and PCIT vs. Prabha Jain, 439 ITR 304 (Mad.) had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the 7 Assessing Officer had cogently brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. 9. There is yet one more reason as to why we are inclined…

ABHISHEK ASHOK LOHADE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.816/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Abhishek Ashok Lohade, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Nashik. 15, Subharda Hsg. Soc., Opp. Circle Cinema, Ashok Stambh, Nashik-422001. Pan : Acepl6296R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From The Execution Of Contracts Etc. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 31.03.2015 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.3,13,680/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Nashik (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 28.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

…8) of the Act. In a case involving identical facts of the case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court after making reference to the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manish D. Jain, 120 taxmann.com 7 180 (Mad.) and PCIT vs. Prabha Jain, 439 ITR 304 (Mad.) had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer had cogently brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. 9. There is yet one more reason as to why we are inclined t…