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

gain or short Term Capital Loss in\ntheir books of accounts. The assessee was one such beneficiary.\n3.\nAs per the information, the share price of PFLIL rose from Rs.14.28 in April 2010 to Rs.825/- in May 2014\nand dipped to Rs.4.58 in April, 2017. However, financials of the company for the relevant period did not show any\nsubstantial change

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

short term capital loss in their books of accounts. YICL was incorporated in January, 1983 as an unlisted company under the name of Yamini Investments Company Ltd. and subsequently converted into public limited company and listed on BSE in January, 1984. The trading of equity shares in the scrip was earlier suspended and the suspension was revoked w.e.f

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

bogus long term capital\ngain on 02.09.2015 at the time of survey in the company in which he is a director,\nhowever, the assessee on the very next day i.e. 03.09.2015 has retracted from his\nstatement filed along with an affidavit. Further SEBI in its final report has cleared\nall the 104 parties. It is also his submission that

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

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

short period of time that too when general market trend was recessive, additions made under section 68 were justified. 23. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narendra Shrikishan Agarwal Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.257/PUN/2019 order dated 05.11.2019, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has rejected the assessee

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

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

short period of time that too when general market trend was recessive, additions made under section 68 were justified. 23. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narendra Shrikishan Agarwal Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.257/PUN/2019 order dated 05.11.2019, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has rejected the assessee

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

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

short period of time that too when general market trend was recessive, additions made under section 68 were justified. 23. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narendra Shrikishan Agarwal Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.257/PUN/2019 order dated 05.11.2019, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has rejected the assessee

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

bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. 31. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Admittedly the original assessment

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

bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. 31. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Admittedly the original assessment

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

bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. 31. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Admittedly the original assessment

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

bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. 31. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Admittedly the original assessment

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

bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. 31. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Admittedly the original assessment

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

bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. 31. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Admittedly the original assessment

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

bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. 31. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Admittedly the original assessment

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

gain or Short Term Capital Loss in their books of accounts. It was noticed that share price of M/s. Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd rose from Rs.39 on 2nd July 2009 to Rs.2050 on 5th Jan 2011and dipped to Rs.47.20 on 15th July 2012. However, the financials of the company for the relevant period do not show any substantial change

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

bogus long term capital gain. We find when the\nassessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed\nthe re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced\nin the preceding paragraphs.\n31. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue.\nAdmittedly the original assessment

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

term capital gains on sale of \"penny\" stocks cannot be\ntreated as bogus & unexplained cash credit if the\ndocumentation is in order & there is no allegation of\nmanipulation by SEBI or the BSE. Denial of right of cross-\nexamination is a fatal flaw which renders the assessment\norder a nullity INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nKamla Devi S. Doshi V/s. The Income

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio