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

bogus. If the purchase and sale of shares are reflected\nin the Assessee's DMAT account, yet they are termed as arranged transactions\nand projected to be real, then, such conclusion which has been reached by the\nCommissioner and the Assessing Officer required a deeper scrutiny. It was also\nrevealed during the course of inquiry by the Assessing Officer that

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

bogus. If the purchase and sale of shares are reflected\nin the Assessee's DMAT account, yet they are termed as arranged transactions\nand projected to be real, then, such conclusion which has been reached by the\nCommissioner and the Assessing Officer required a deeper scrutiny. It was also\nrevealed during the course of inquiry by the Assessing Officer that

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment year, no action shall be taken under the section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

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

purchase bills, sale bills, demat statement etc., same not being earned from bogus companies was eligible for exemption under section 10(38). 27. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Renu Aggarwal, 153

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

purchase of spare part. Hence in absence of any documentary evidence, the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. Accordingly, payment made to Franco Itely through journal entry is treated as bogus and the same is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act are initiated separately. [Addition

R. K. WINES,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus purchases from the disputed\ncreditors. It is thus the case that without such purchases the subsequent\nsale of liquor could not have been effected.\nThe appellant submits that non responding by some parties to notice us\n133(6) cannot be a ground to reject book results u/s 145(3) Reliance\nplaced on CIT-vs-Jas Jack Elegance Exports

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. Thus there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the AO. There was independent application of mind on the part of the AO. Further reliance is placed upon clause (b) of explanation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

purchases has been proved by corroborated by way of invoices and bank payments. The case laws relied by the appellant are found to be applicable to the facts of the case in hand and supports the appellants case. 6 8.3 Considering the fact that, the A.O has not brought on record any defect in the books of accounts maintained

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

purchased by assessee\nonline, payments were made through banking channel and shares were\ndematerialized and, further, sales were routed from demat account and, sale\nconsideration was received through banking channels, impugned addition made by\nAssessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified.\n20. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

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

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 by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

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 by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

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 by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

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 by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

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 by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

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 by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

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 by Assessing Officer under section 68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court