MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh and Mr. Piyush

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh and Mr. Piyush

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh and Mr. Piyush

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh and Mr. Piyush

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh and Mr. Piyush

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh and Mr. Piyush

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits that on holistic reading of the statements of all the persons, clinching evidences ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani found from Mr. Bhatt, corroborative statement of Mr. Kalpesh and Mr. Piyush

SURENDRA GARG HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

132A and in respect of such assessment\nyear-\n(a) no return of income has been furnished by such\nother person and no notice under sub-section (1)\nof section 142 has been issued to him, or\n(b) a return of income has been furnished by such\nother person but no notice under sub-section (2)\nof section

DCIT-CC 3(2), MUMBAI vs. ANIRUDDHA N MALPANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gain on the sale of the Pune plot was in respect of the assessment year 2013-14 and therefore the same is not relevant for the year under consideration and in any Smt. Anjali A. Malpani Shri Aniruddha N. Malpani A.Y. 2015–16 case, no addition has been made in respect of the gain arising from the sale

ANJALI A. MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gain on the sale of the Pune plot was in respect of the assessment year 2013-14 and therefore the same is not relevant for the year under consideration and in any Smt. Anjali A. Malpani Shri Aniruddha N. Malpani A.Y. 2015–16 case, no addition has been made in respect of the gain arising from the sale

ANIRUDDHA N. MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC - 3 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gain on the sale of the Pune plot was in respect of the assessment year 2013-14 and therefore the same is not relevant for the year under consideration and in any Smt. Anjali A. Malpani Shri Aniruddha N. Malpani A.Y. 2015–16 case, no addition has been made in respect of the gain arising from the sale

DCIT-CC3(2), MUMBAI vs. ANJALI A MALPANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gain on the sale of the Pune plot was in respect of the assessment year 2013-14 and therefore the same is not relevant for the year under consideration and in any Smt. Anjali A. Malpani Shri Aniruddha N. Malpani A.Y. 2015–16 case, no addition has been made in respect of the gain arising from the sale

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of those listed equity shares, merely on surmises/r conjectures and without any basis / evidence. Thus, the impugned addition made on presumptions must be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in considering 5. the gain on sale of shares of M/s Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd. As penny stock without appreciating the documents

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of those listed equity shares, merely on surmises/r conjectures and without any basis / evidence. Thus, the impugned addition made on presumptions must be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in considering 5. the gain on sale of shares of M/s Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd. As penny stock without appreciating the documents

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of those listed equity shares, merely on surmises/r conjectures and without any basis / evidence. Thus, the impugned addition made on presumptions must be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in considering 5. the gain on sale of shares of M/s Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd. As penny stock without appreciating the documents

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of those listed equity shares, merely on surmises/r conjectures and without any basis / evidence. Thus, the impugned addition made on presumptions must be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in considering 5. the gain on sale of shares of M/s Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd. As penny stock without appreciating the documents

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of those listed equity shares, merely on surmises/r conjectures and without any basis / evidence. Thus, the impugned addition made on presumptions must be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in considering 5. the gain on sale of shares of M/s Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd. As penny stock without appreciating the documents

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain on sale of those listed equity shares, merely on surmises/r conjectures and without any basis / evidence. Thus, the impugned addition made on presumptions must be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in considering 5. the gain on sale of shares of M/s Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd. As penny stock without appreciating the documents