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

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

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

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

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

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

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

purchased the Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. through offline mode on 12.11.2012. Further, there was no response from the side of assessee to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO concluded that the long term capital gain shown by the assessee in the return of income if bogus. He accordingly added the total amount

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

bogus long term capital\ngain.\nThe Assessing Officer also wrote to Bombay Stock Exchange and National\nStock Exchange and called for the trade data with regard to purchase and sale of\nshares made by the assessee. On an analysis of the trade data he observed that 8\npaper companies with address at 32, Baranasi Ghosh Streeet and 23/1, Principal\nKhudiram

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

purchased shares of Mishkafin Finance\nLtd and subsequently these shares were sold for sum of Rs.\n1,00,23,500/-. The resultant capital gains of Rs.1,00,08,355/-\nwas claimed exempted u/s 10(38). The Ld. AO treated entire\ncapital gain as bogus

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

bogus long term capital of Rs.1,52,62,200/- should not be added to his total income u/s 68 of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee purchased the shares of M/s. S.V. Electricals Ltd. / NITSL with the sole intention of earning profit from the penny stock and therefore, such transaction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

exemption under section 10(38) on account of LTCG arose on sale of shares of a company, since there was no dispute that these shares were purchased by assessee online, payments were made through banking channel and shares were dematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale consideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made