SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iii) of sub section (1), then it is taxed as capital gains arising from transfer of a short term capital asset. Secondly, the deeming provisions has been confined only to the purpose of computation of sections 48 and 49 of the Act and the capital gains then arising is deemed to be from transfer of short term capital assets

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

gains\ncomputed under section 50, arising on transfer of long term capital assets, at the\nrates mentioned in section 112 of the Act instead of charging them at the normal\nrates as has been done by the AO.\"\n3\nITA Nos.261 & 1022/Mum/2025\nSamir Narain Bhojwani\nITA No. 1022/Mum/2025 – Revenue\n1. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , CIRLCE 14(1)(2)TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 32(1) of the Act in case of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of succession of business, the aggregate deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable to the depreciation on any tangible

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

capital gains tax as per the provisions of section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the assessee section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the section 50B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the cannot be denied the benefit of higher cost by relying on the sixth cannot be denied the benefit

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

gainful to re-visit the settled position of law on the issue of reopening especially after four years wherein proviso to section 147 of the Act is applicable. It has to be borne in mind that the concept of assessment is governed by the time-barring rule; and an assessee acquires a right as to the finality of proceedings. Quietus

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

32,373,318 677,189,263 644,916.945 644,916.945 per ICC- new Scal worki ng) Two 143,220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

32,373,318 677,189,263 644,916.945 644,916.945 per ICC- new Scal worki ng) Two 143,220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

32,373,318 677,189,263 644,916.945 644,916.945 per ICC- new Scal worki ng) Two 143,220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

32,373,318 677,189,263 644,916.945 644,916.945 per ICC- new Scal worki ng) Two 143,220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

32,707/- as Long Term Capital Gain as against Short Term Capital Gain as assessed by the AO.” 3. Facts in brief qua the issue raised in ground no. 1 are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of travel agent and chartering of yacht and helicopters, etc. The Assessing Officer noticed that in the Profit & Loss account

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

32. The learned AO after perusing the computation of total income along-with the MAT computation and the letter dated 1 December 2015 (Refer page 51 to 55 of Paperbook) which was on record at the time of assessment proceedings, sought an inquiry in respect of the capital gains claimed and declared the same as not chargeable under section

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

32 of the 1961 Act was also claimed by the assessee by treating the same as long term capital gains entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the 1961 Act on reinvestment made in new residential flat at Beau Monde, while the Revenue on the other hand treated the same as short term capital gains in the teeth of provisions

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

32 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. are included in the net worth, the computation of capital gain will be incorrect as the full value of consideration has been determined by reducing the value of all the liabilities. Thus it is evident that for the purposes of working out the amount of capital gain u/s 45, the computation

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NITIN KUMAR DINDAYAL DIDWANIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

iii. Statement made by the assessee is admissible evidence for making addition as it is backed by proper material even during the course of search on the assessee. iv. Learned CIT (A) is correct in holding that the bogus long-term capital gain earned by the assessee is correctly to be taxed. v. There is enough incriminating material found during

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NITIN KUMAR DINDAYAL DIDWANIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

iii. Statement made by the assessee is admissible evidence for making addition as it is backed by proper material even during the course of search on the assessee. iv. Learned CIT (A) is correct in holding that the bogus long-term capital gain earned by the assessee is correctly to be taxed. v. There is enough incriminating material found during

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NITIN KUMAR DINDAYAL DIDWANIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

iii. Statement made by the assessee is admissible evidence for making addition as it is backed by proper material even during the course of search on the assessee. iv. Learned CIT (A) is correct in holding that the bogus long-term capital gain earned by the assessee is correctly to be taxed. v. There is enough incriminating material found during