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

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. 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

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. 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

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

section 153C of the Act to make a re-assessment of the income\nand not u/s 148 of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has initiated re-assessment\nproceedings u/s 147 instead of 153C which is clearly applicable to the facts of the\npresent case, therefore, such action of the Assessing Officer being not in\naccordance with

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

section 153C of the Act to make a re-assessment of the income\nand not u/s 148 of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has initiated re-assessment\nproceedings u/s 147 instead of 153C which is clearly applicable to the facts of the\npresent case, therefore, such action of the Assessing Officer being not in\naccordance with

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

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

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

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

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the Assessing Officer. (2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest

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

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the Assessing Officer. (2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest

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

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the Assessing Officer. (2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest