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

capital gain\nclaimed during the year, for which the appellant has taken strong objection in his\nwritten submission. After carefully considering the information/details/ documentary\nevidence furnished by the appellant at the assessment stage, I am convinced that the\nappellant has provided all the required details to substantiate his claim of LTCG\nduring the year under consideration.\n\n8.3 The assessing

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

gain exempt income. Therefore, I have reason to believe that an amount of Rs.Rs.85,38,145/- has escaped assessment within the meaning section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true and correct income in his return of income for A.Y.2016-17. The provisions of Explanation

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

capital gain\nclaimed during the year, for which the appellant has taken strong objection in his\nwritten submission. After carefully considering the information/details/ documentary\nevidence furnished by the appellant at the assessment stage, I am convinced that the\nappellant has provided all the required details to substantiate his claim of LTCG\nduring the year under consideration.\n\n8.3 The assessing

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

gain or short term capital loss in their books of accounts. The assessee Shri Ashish Omprakash Mantri was one such beneficiary and the amount involved in his case is Rs.1,60,30,716/-. 5. After receiving the above information, the Assessing Officer carried out investigations and found that the share price of the above company i.e. NITSL rose from Rs.39

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

gain or short term capital loss in their books of accounts. The assessee Shri Ashish Omprakash Mantri was one such beneficiary and the amount involved in his case is Rs.1,60,30,716/-. 5. After receiving the above information, the Assessing Officer carried out investigations and found that the share price of the above company i.e. NITSL rose from Rs.39

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

gain or short term capital loss in their books of accounts. The assessee Shri Ashish Omprakash Mantri was one such beneficiary and the amount involved in his case is Rs.1,60,30,716/-. 5. After receiving the above information, the Assessing Officer carried out investigations and found that the share price of the above company i.e. NITSL rose from Rs.39

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

gain or short term capital loss in their books of accounts. The assessee Shri Ashish Omprakash Mantri was one such beneficiary and the amount involved in his case is Rs.1,60,30,716/-. 5. After receiving the above information, the Assessing Officer carried out investigations and found that the share price of the above company i.e. NITSL rose from Rs.39

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

gain or short term capital loss in their books of accounts. The assessee Shri Ashish Omprakash Mantri was one such beneficiary and the amount involved in his case is Rs.1,60,30,716/-. 5. After receiving the above information, the Assessing Officer carried out investigations and found that the share price of the above company i.e. NITSL rose from Rs.39

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

gain or short term capital loss in their books of accounts. The assessee Shri Ashish Omprakash Mantri was one such beneficiary and the amount involved in his case is Rs.1,60,30,716/-. 5. After receiving the above information, the Assessing Officer carried out investigations and found that the share price of the above company i.e. NITSL rose from Rs.39

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

gain or short term capital loss in their books of accounts. The assessee Shri Ashish Omprakash Mantri was one such beneficiary and the amount involved in his case is Rs.1,60,30,716/-. 5. After receiving the above information, the Assessing Officer carried out investigations and found that the share price of the above company i.e. NITSL rose from Rs.39

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

gain or short\nterm capital loss in their books of accounts. The assessee Shri Ashish Omprakash\nMantri was one such beneficiary and the amount involved in his case is\nRs.1,60,30,716/-.\n5. After receiving the above information, the Assessing Officer carried out\ninvestigations and found that the share price of the above company i.e. NITSL rose\nfrom Rs.39

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

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

capital gains from compensation or enhanced compensation from land acquisition, but not on interest on such compensation. In the present instance, the amount represents interest on enhanced compensation, but the compensation or enhanced compensation itself. Thirdly, reference is made to Section 57 (iv) rws 56(2)(viii). Section 57(iv) gives benefit of 50% deduction on amounts mentioned

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

151 of the Act.” 13. In the above reasons recorded, we observe that in para 4(d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation received during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine therefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature

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

151 of the Act.” 13. In the above reasons recorded, we observe that in para 4(d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation received during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine therefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature

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

151 of the Act.” 13. In the above reasons recorded, we observe that in para 4(d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation received during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine therefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

151 (SC), wherein it held, "7.2 The object and purpose of introduction of section 45(4) was to pluck the loophole by insertion of section 45(4) and omission of section 2(47)(ii) While introduction to section 45(4), clause (ii) of section 2(47) came to be omitted. Earlier, omission of clause (ii) of section