SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus long term capital gains. The details of the long term capital gains claimed to have accrued to the assessee in respect of such shares are given below : 1. Blue Circle Services : 2,22,86,551 2. Parag Shilpa Investments : 1,51,66,667 Out of the above, the long term capital gains on account of sale of shares

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus long term capital gains. The details of the long term capital gains claimed to have accrued to the assessee in respect of such shares are given below : 1. Blue Circle Services : 2,22,86,551 2. Parag Shilpa Investments : 1,51,66,667 Out of the above, the long term capital gains on account of sale of shares

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus long term capital gains. The details of the long term capital gains claimed to have accrued to the assessee in respect of such shares are given below : 1. Blue Circle Services : 2,22,86,551 2. Parag Shilpa Investments : 1,51,66,667 Out of the above, the long term capital gains on account of sale of shares

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

purchase bill of shares, bank account statements, DP statements to strengthen your claim of Long Term Capital Gain. 3. I have gone through the submissions made by you. It is seen that however the events are notsimple or lucid as stated to have been happened. There are some important circumstantial as well as direct evidences to show that the Long

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

purchase bill of shares, bank account statements, DP statements to strengthen your claim of Long Term Capital Gain. 3. I have gone through the submissions made by you. It is seen that however the events are notsimple or lucid as stated to have been happened. There are some important circumstantial as well as direct evidences to show that the Long

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

purchase bill of shares, bank account statements, DP statements to strengthen your claim of Long Term Capital Gain. 3. I have gone through the submissions made by you. It is seen that however the events are notsimple or lucid as stated to have been happened. There are some important circumstantial as well as direct evidences to show that the Long

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

purchase bill of shares, bank account statements, DP statements to strengthen your claim of Long Term Capital Gain. 3. I have gone through the submissions made by you. It is seen that however the events are notsimple or lucid as stated to have been happened. There are some important circumstantial as well as direct evidences to show that the Long

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus share capital by the Companies through the device of money laundering and hence it is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same is distinguishable on facts. 2.27 It is submitted that it is a well settled principle that if the learned Assessing officer has taken one of the possible views

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

bogus share capital by the Companies through the device of money laundering and hence it is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same is distinguishable on facts. 2.27 It is submitted that it is a well settled principle that if the learned Assessing officer has taken one of the possible views

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added to the income returned by the assessee for the year. 14. On account of the facts and circumstances as above

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added to the income returned by the assessee for the year. 14. On account of the facts and circumstances as above

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added to the income returned by the assessee for the year. 14. On account of the facts and circumstances as above

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added to the income returned by the assessee for the year. 14. On account of the facts and circumstances as above

SMT. USHA BEN NAHAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

long term capital gain which is exempt u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act. He has further contented that the assessee in support of its claim furnished the contract notes of the broker thereby the shares were purchased by the assessee. Further the assessee has duly shown the shares in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2005. Therefore, the assessee

SHRI.VIJAY NAHAR(HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2007-08

long term capital gain which is exempt u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act. He has further contented that the assessee in support of its claim furnished the contract notes of the broker thereby the shares were purchased by the assessee. Further the assessee has duly shown the shares in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2005. Therefore, the assessee

SMT.ASHA NAHAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2007-08

long term capital gain which is exempt u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act. He has further contented that the assessee in support of its claim furnished the contract notes of the broker thereby the shares were purchased by the assessee. Further the assessee has duly shown the shares in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2005. Therefore, the assessee

SMT.H.V.PINKY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2007-08

long term capital gain which is exempt u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act. He has further contented that the assessee in support of its claim furnished the contract notes of the broker thereby the shares were purchased by the assessee. Further the assessee has duly shown the shares in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2005. Therefore, the assessee

SHRI.VIJAY HAHAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2007-08

long term capital gain which is exempt u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act. He has further contented that the assessee in support of its claim furnished the contract notes of the broker thereby the shares were purchased by the assessee. Further the assessee has duly shown the shares in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2005. Therefore, the assessee