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.

capital gains and treating the same as business income is beyond the powers conferred u/s. 251 of the Act. In this regard, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Narayan Sharma v. ITO [65 ITR (Trib.) 194]. However, as pointed out during the course of hearing, the facts of that

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

capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry\nin the case of the said broker

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

capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry\nin the case of the said broker

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

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

capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry\nin the case of the said broker

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

capital gain of Rs. 85,38,145/- as exempted from sale of shares of YICL. 5.3.1 It is further seen from the Investigation report that in this scheme, the shares of the penny stock companies are acquired by the beneficiaries of LTCG at very low prices through the route of preferential allotment and off market transactions, then granting the bonus

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” 5.5 If the provisions of law contained under section 14A and diction of section 14A is perused

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise\nthat entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of\naccommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by\nassessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of\nshares.\n7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon\nexamining