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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

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”].

capital gains' were neither intrinsically nor congenitally of income character. 13. It is submitted that the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai (supra), on which the AO places reliance simply relied on Harprasad (supra) and decided the issue in the department’s favour. It neither considered the judgement of the Calcutta High Court

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)

capital gain as taxable and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 3. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making addition of Rs.1,00,97,902/- under section 68 of the Act and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik, has erred in confirming

GANPAT MUKUNDRAO MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

ITO WARD 9(4),, PUNE vs. SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

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

131 of the Act wherein specific questions were asked to him to which he had replied, the details of which are as under: “Q. 19. On verification of the Balance Sheets of Atul O Mantri it is seen that Long Term Capital Gains on Sale of Share is credited to Capital Account, the Details are as under

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

131 of the Act wherein specific questions were asked to him to which he had replied, the details of which are as under: “Q. 19. On verification of the Balance Sheets of Atul O Mantri it is seen that Long Term Capital Gains on Sale of Share is credited to Capital Account, the Details are as under

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

131 of the Act wherein specific questions were asked to him to which he had replied, the details of which are as under: “Q. 19. On verification of the Balance Sheets of Atul O Mantri it is seen that Long Term Capital Gains on Sale of Share is credited to Capital Account, the Details are as under

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

131 of the Act wherein specific questions were asked to him to which he had replied, the details of which are as under: “Q. 19. On verification of the Balance Sheets of Atul O Mantri it is seen that Long Term Capital Gains on Sale of Share is credited to Capital Account, the Details are as under

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

131 of the Act wherein specific questions were asked to him to which he had replied, the details of which are as under: “Q. 19. On verification of the Balance Sheets of Atul O Mantri it is seen that Long Term Capital Gains on Sale of Share is credited to Capital Account, the Details are as under

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

131 of the Act wherein specific questions were asked to him to which he had replied, the details of which are as under: “Q. 19. On verification of the Balance Sheets of Atul O Mantri it is seen that Long Term Capital Gains on Sale of Share is credited to Capital Account, the Details are as under

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

131 of the Act wherein specific questions were asked to him to which he had replied, the details of which are as under: “Q. 19. On verification of the Balance Sheets of Atul O Mantri it is seen that Long Term Capital Gains on Sale of Share is credited to Capital Account, the Details are as under

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

capital gain as taxable\nand the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik has\nerred in confirming the same.\n3.\nThe learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making\naddition of Rs.1,00,97,902/- under section 68 of the Act and the learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik, has erred in confirming

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

131 of\nthe Act wherein specific questions were asked to him to which he had replied, the\ndetails of which are as under:\n“Q. 19. On verification of the Balance Sheets of Atul O Mantri it is seen that\nLong Term Capital Gains on Sale of Share is credited to Capital\nAccount, the Details are as under\nA.Y

SHRI GANESH RAMCHANDRA MORE,PANVEL vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

capital gain on sale of land is enhanced to Rs. 30,00,000/- as sale consideration of the immovable property accepted by the appellant. 5.2 The acceptance of money on sale of immovable property is violation of provision of section 269SS of the Act and attract penalty as per provision of section 271D of the Act. During the appellate proceeding

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

131 of the Act was recorded. In the statement, the assessee agreed to pay taxes on the LTCG claimed amounting to Rs. 1,30,13,347/- on behalf of his wife Mrs. Sarika Amit Sanap. However, later assessee retracted from the same. 3 Saika A. Sanap A.Y. 2015-16 4. The ld. D.R further brought to our notice para