THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

OIL INDIA LTD.,,DIBRUGARH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH.

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

SHREE PRAKSH SINGH,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIGBOI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.14/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

capital gain of Rs.5,50,17,042/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has held that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer was valid in the eye of law. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed

VIVEK AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed