INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DEBROS POLYMER PRODUCT,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

bogus purchases. 3. Dr. Vivek Aggarwal representing the Department vehemently supporting the assessment order submitted that during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had sent notices to the Hawala dealers from whom the assessee had purportedly made purchases. The registered letters sent to the dealers were received back un-served with remarks “Left/Refused/not known”. The assessee was given opportunity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

bogus purchases of Rs.1,85,00,000/- as unexplained credit. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC it was submitted that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and the return was filed by claiming exemption

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

bogus purchases of Rs.1,85,00,000/- as unexplained credit. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC it was submitted that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and the return was filed by claiming exemption

TULSI EXTRUSIONS LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Tulsi Extrusions Ltd. N-99 & 100, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Pin-425 003 Pan : Aaact8441P .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Jalgaon. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

exempt income during the year in respect of the assessee. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct deletion of disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act. Thus, ground No.1 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. 6. Ground No.2 is with regard to the addition on bogus purchase

GORUR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW PANVEL vs. DY. CIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

bogus purchases and gave relief u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act by holding that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, NANDED vs. SHRI. NANDKISHORE K. DILERAO,, NANDED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases. Relying on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), ld. DR submitted that such cases falls in the scope of clause (e) of para 3 of the said Circular (supra). As per the clause (e) of para 3 of the said Circular (supra), certain appeals are exempted

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

exemption of long capital gain to the assessee amounting to Rs.23,72,323/-. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion confirming the impugned addition on account of bogus long term capital gains as under: “5. I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of purchase

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, JALNA vs. PANKAJ OMPRAKASH ZANZARI,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases. Relying on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), ld. DR submitted that such cases falls in the scope of clause (e) of para 3 of the said Circular (supra). As per the clause (e) of para 3 of the said Circular (supra), certain appeals are exempted

SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, 96, Nayantara, Subhash Nashik. Chowk, Jalgaon-425001. Pan : Algpb5972R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur (‘The Pcit’) Dated 08.06.2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit Has Grossly Erred In Exercising His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act 1961. The Impugned Revisional Order Passed By The Learned Pr.Cit Is Patently Illegal., Void Ab Initio, Bad In Law, Arbitrary, Perverse, Without Jurisdiction & Being Devoid Of Merits The Same May Please Be Deleted. 2. Since The Learned Pr.Cit Has Failed To Revise The Directions Given By The Learned J.C.I.T. Nashik To The Learned Assessing Officer In The Matter Of Framing The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143[3] R.W.S.L53A

bogus claim for capital gains exemption. The Assessing Officer had failed to enquire into the genuineness of the 6 transaction of purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

purchased shares of a company listed on Bombay Stock Exchange through a D-mat account, with payments made via banking channels and Security Transaction Tax paid, fulfilling all conditions for exemption under Section 10(38), Assessing Officer could not question genuineness of those shares or treat them as bogus

M/S. KASTURI RASHI DEVELOPERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

bogus loan received from M/s. Mohit International, through a proprietorship concern of Mr. Nilesh Parmar, which was actually controlled by Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, with whom Mr. Nilesh Parmar was working as an Accountant. Not only that, even Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain also admitted before the authorities that he was engaged in giving accommodation entries through companies under his control

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

purchaser earn huge exempted LTCG on share sale but it is bogus LTCG because eqppl amount to LTCG along with

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) being not in accordance with law has to be allowed. 27. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has purchased the shares through

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

exemption under Section 10(38) and treating such long term capital gain as bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

exemption under Section 10(38) and treating such long term capital gain as bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that