ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PANNALAL BHANSALI, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

249/-, Ld. AO noted that assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,45,80,798/- as per schedule EI 5 ITA No.428/GTY/2019 & CO No. 12/GTY/2019 Pannalal Bhansali, AY: 2016-17 of his return as exempt income u/s. 10(38) of the Act towards LTCG. To examine the genuineness of claim of LTCG, Ld. AO called for details of shares

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order under present appeals. 4. That the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order under present appeals. 4. That the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order under present appeals. 4. That the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT

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)

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 has been held to be bogus and on this the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. On a query from the Bench

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:

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 has been held to be bogus and on this the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. On a query from the Bench

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:

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 has been held to be bogus and on this the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. On a query from the Bench