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

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 in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

bogus entries of long term capital gain being exempt from tax and the modus operandi of the operators was also exposed. Bringing those facts & finding out the other details such as financial reports of M/s. Surabhi Chemicals & Investment Pvt. Ltd., the AO held that long term capital gain claimed by the assessee was a rigged one. By placing reliance

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 The trading of equity shares in the scrip was earlier suspended and the suspension was revoked w.e.f

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Term Capital Gain taking the sale consideration at Rs.117,31,70,040/- for two assessment years as under : AY Sale consideration disclosed in the Sale consideration for the Return of Income purpose of Section 48 r.w.s 50C 2010-11 103,40,00,000/- 115,63,94,491/- 2011-12 1,50,00,000/- 1,67,75,549/- Total

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Term Capital Gain taking the sale consideration at Rs.117,31,70,040/- for two assessment years as under : AY Sale consideration disclosed in the Sale consideration for the Return of Income purpose of Section 48 r.w.s 50C 2010-11 103,40,00,000/- 115,63,94,491/- 2011-12 1,50,00,000/- 1,67,75,549/- Total

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. 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. 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. 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

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

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