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

132 was\nconducted in the case of the assessee on 02.05.2013. The assessee filed original return of income on 23.10.2015\ndeclaring total income of Rs.1,23,93,990/-. Thereafter, assessment under section u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153B was\ncompleted on 30.11.2016 accepting the total income returned.\n\n2. As per the information in possession of this office, the assessee had sold

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 on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein 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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein 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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein 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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein the assessee

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 on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein the assessee

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 on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein 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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein the assessee

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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the\nAct'). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the\nbusiness and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein\nthe assessee

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

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

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 10.09.2014. Accordingly notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 23.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,23,93,990/-. The Assessing Officer completed

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

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

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 10.09.2014. Accordingly notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 23.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,23,93,990/-. The Assessing Officer completed

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

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

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 10.09.2014. Accordingly notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 23.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,23,93,990/-. The Assessing Officer completed

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gains (LTCG)\nfrom the sale of 200,000 shares of MISHKAFIN as unexplained\nmoney under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and\ntaxing it under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the findings

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

132(4A), about the contents of the seized material has to be either completely true or complete false and the revenue is not entitled to be selective or adopting a pick and choose approach. The nature of payments has been mentioned on the excel sheets which evidently proves that the expenses are incurred for business purposes only and once entire

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

132(4A), about the contents of the seized material has to be either completely true or complete false and the revenue is not entitled to be selective or adopting a pick and choose approach. The nature of payments has been mentioned on the excel sheets which evidently proves that the expenses are incurred for business purposes only and once entire

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

132(4A), about the contents of the seized material has to be either completely true or complete false and the revenue is not entitled to be selective or adopting a pick and choose approach. The nature of payments has been mentioned on the excel sheets which evidently proves that the expenses are incurred for business purposes only and once entire

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

132(4A), about the contents of the seized material has to be either completely true or complete false and the revenue is not entitled to be selective or adopting a pick and choose approach. The nature of payments has been mentioned on the excel sheets which evidently proves that the expenses are incurred for business purposes only and once entire