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

147\nr.w.s.144B of the Act made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- by rejecting the claim of\nlong term capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act treating such sale of shares of PFL as\nbogus and held that the assessee has brought in his own unaccounted income in the\nguise of long term capital gain. We find in appeal

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

147\nr.w.s.144B of the Act made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- by rejecting the claim of\nlong term capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act treating such sale of shares of PFL as\nbogus and held that the assessee has brought in his own unaccounted income in the\nguise of long term capital gain. We find in appeal

RAJANI PRAKASH KASHID,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

147 of the Act on 20.12.2018 on total income of Rs.49,41,380/- including therein an addition of Rs.49,32,500/- on account of long term capital gain. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO by observing as under

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

147\nr.w.s.144B of the Act made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- by rejecting the claim of\nlong term capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act treating such sale of shares of PFL as\nbogus and held that the assessee has brought in his own unaccounted income in the\nguise of long term capital gain. We find in appeal

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”].

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, it is clear 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

147 wherein he disallowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and also made the addition of Rs.3,20,614/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act being the commission paid for earning such bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged

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

147 wherein he disallowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and also made the addition of Rs.3,20,614/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act being the commission paid for earning such bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged

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

147 wherein he disallowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and also made the addition of Rs.3,20,614/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act being the commission paid for earning such bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged

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

147 wherein he disallowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and also made the addition of Rs.3,20,614/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act being the commission paid for earning such bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged

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

147 wherein he disallowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and also made the addition of Rs.3,20,614/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act being the commission paid for earning such bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged

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

147 wherein he disallowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and also made the addition of Rs.3,20,614/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act being the commission paid for earning such bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged

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

147 wherein he disallowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and also made the addition of Rs.3,20,614/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act being the commission paid for earning such bogus long term capital gain. We find when the assessee challenged

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income