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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

capital gain account showing the deposit of Rs.68,56,000/- on 31.07.2017. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to PMC to obtain the status of completion of construction on the plot No.4 wherein the assessee

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)

section 12A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956] has clearly held that Shri Vijay Kumar Jain has been involved in the manipulation of the share price of this listed company and has manipulated so as to utilize this scrip to arrange entry of bogus long term capital gains and has subsequently restrained Shri Vijay Kumar Jain from accessing

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

133(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that during the course of 153A proceedings the assessee had given

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

133(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that during the course of 153A proceedings the assessee had given

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

133(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that during the course of 153A proceedings the assessee had given

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

133(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that during the course of 153A proceedings the assessee had given

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

133(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that during the course of 153A proceedings the assessee had given

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

133(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that during the course of 153A proceedings the assessee had given

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

133(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that during the course of 153A proceedings the assessee had given

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

section 12A of the Securities Contracts\n(Regulation) Act, 1956] has clearly held that Shri Vijay Kumar Jain has been\ninvolved in the manipulation of the share price of this listed company and has\nmanipulated so as to utilize this scrip to arrange entry of bogus long term capital\ngains and has subsequently restrained Shri Vijay Kumar Jain from accessing

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) as exempt. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information about the assessee's involvement in penny stock transactions and reopened the assessment. The AO disallowed the LTCG exemption and made additions, alleging the transaction was part of an accommodation entry scheme to introduce unaccounted income.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable

VASANT SHIVRAM MADHAVI,PANVEL vs. ITO WARD - 5, PANVEL

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain derived from the sale of such immovable property remained undeclared. Thereafter, following the due procedure as provided by section 148A of the Act, a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 22.03.2022 after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee was also asked to explain

NINAD ARUN DIWAKAR,NASHIK vs. ITO, ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1318/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ninad Arun Diwakar, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.F-98, Midc, S Acti Circle-1, Nashik. Satpur Nashik – 422007. Pan: Ahepd7516M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y.2022-23 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Capital Gain deposit scheme on account of non-confirmation from the State Bank of India in response to notice issued under Section 133(6

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

133(6) were issued by the ITO (I & CI) Kolhapur. In these replied the claimed donors denied having made as donations to the assessee trust. The assessee could not provide any answer to the above query. No satisfactory explanation was given by the assessee. 06. The evidences collected during the course of survey action establish the following facts

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

133(6) were issued by the ITO (I & CI) Kolhapur. In these replied the claimed donors denied having made as donations to the assessee trust. The assessee could not provide any answer to the above query. No satisfactory explanation was given by the assessee. 06. The evidences collected during the course of survey action establish the following facts

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

133(6) were issued by the ITO (I & CI) Kolhapur. In these replied the claimed donors denied having made as donations to the assessee trust. The assessee could not provide any answer to the above query. No satisfactory explanation was given by the assessee. 06. The evidences collected during the course of survey action establish the following facts

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

133 (Pune - Trib.) [26-12-2024] 5 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited 6. Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar Vs. (ITO ITA Nos. 2131 & 2132/PUN/2024) [18-02-2025] 7. Schneider Electric Southeast Asia (11Q) Pte. Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi HC) [28-03-2022) 6. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order