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

bogus STCG, STCL or LTCG exempt\nfrom tax under section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of this penny stock company\nlisted on BSE Script Code 531769. It was stated that this company has been used to facilitate introduction of\nunaccounted income of members or beneficiaries in the form of exempt capital gain

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

bogus STCG, STCL or LTCG exempt\nfrom tax under section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of this penny stock company\nlisted on BSE Script Code 531769. It was stated that this company has been used to facilitate introduction of\nunaccounted income of members or beneficiaries in the form of exempt capital gain

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

bogus STCG, STCL or LTCG exempt\nfrom tax under section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of this penny stock company\nlisted on BSE Script Code 531769. It was stated that this company has been used to facilitate introduction of\nunaccounted income of members or beneficiaries in the form of exempt capital gain

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

section 10(38) and made\nadditions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for\nproviding bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse\ncomments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these\ntransactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing\nreport, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted

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)

purchased bogus long term capital gain through the sale of scrip of M/s Mishka and disclosed an amount of Rs.1,00,97,902/- in his hands and Rs.99,63,145/- in the hands of his wife on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gains for assessment year 2014-15. However, vide letter dated 04.09.2015 the assessee retracted from his earlier

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

38) on the purchase/sale of shares of Mishka. The Assessing Officer noted that\nthe admission was voluntary and the assessee has not denied or disapproved on\nmerits the evidences/allegations shown by the department to prove that the\nassessee and his wife have taken accommodation entries of bogus Long Term\nCapita Gains.\nThe Assessing Officer discussed the modus operandi of bogus

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

10,400/-\n5\nBlue Sea Commodities\n60,38,26,000/-\nTotal\n180,05,90,205/-\n8.\nHe submitted that the assessee had not shown any transactions with M/s.\nForum Enterprises during the year and the said fact was submitted before the\nAssessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings vide reply dated\n18.11.2022. So far as M/s. Curzen Infraprojects

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

10(38).\nPCIT Vs Indravadan Jain, HUF Income tax ax Appeal No.\n454 of 2018 (Bombay HC) -date of order - 12-07-2023\nIn the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld\nthe decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal\nhad held that since the shares were purchased on the floor of\nstock exchange

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

bogus / untested purchases. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed. 34. The ground of appeal No.4 by the Revenue relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.17,42,770/-. 35. Facts of the case in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SATARA CIRCLE,SATARA, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

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

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

purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only commission for providing such false entries in its books of account. He, therefore, added an amount of Rs.3,60,11,804/- being the commission @ 2% on such bogus sales amounting to Rs.1,80,05,90,205/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Before

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

38,980. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information received from the O/o. ITO, Ward-4(3)-4, Mumbai about the alleged bogus purchases of ₹87.65 crore made by the assessee from M/s. Sharp Kind Trading Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘SKTPL’) which was gathered during the course of scrutiny proceedings of SKTPL wherein for effecting the sales

JAYESH VALLABH THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, , NASHIK

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) dated 26/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 7. The assessee appeals to grant any relief that may be due to the Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter