ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH 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

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, 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 as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

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 as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

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 as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

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 as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

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 as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

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 as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

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 as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

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

capital gain as\nclaimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and\nsale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained\ninvestment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus\nprofit on sale of shares.\n7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon\nexamining

GAURI SAGAR SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

Capital Gain (“LTCG”) arising in the hands of the assessee pursuant to the development agreement. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who without admitting the appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not filed valid return of income as well as not paid an amount equal

ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 249(4) of the Act will not apply as\nthere is no question of paying advance tax in reassessment proceedings,\neven though assessee did not file Rol.”\n5.3 On merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made\nby the Ld. AO in respect of the property transaction (i.e. purchase of\nresidential flat) in the hands

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

gain has arisen not out of transfer of capital asset. It is out of transfer of stock in trade. Here the assessee firm has come in to existence with the motive of trading of plots This is the business of the assessee. The profit earned is also taxed as business income. Hence, exemption claimed on profit arisen on account transfer

MADHUKAR GANPAT DHAKWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(5), RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

capital gain on sale of immovable property. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT appeal. Since the assessee has not paid any advance tax as contemplated under section 249

MADHUKAR GANPAT DHAKWAL,MANGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NEW PANVEL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

capital gain on sale of immovable property. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT appeal. Since the assessee has not paid any advance tax as contemplated under section 249

SAGAR JAYWANT ELAWANDE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD13(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

capital gain is arising to the assessee which could attract income tax on him. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find force in the arguments of the counsel of the assessee & accordingly hold, that in the light of section 249

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

capital gains and similarly in ground No.6 the assessee prays for allowance of claim of unabsorbed expenses and depreciation from earlier years against the income so assessed. 3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 vide No.E1150, Pune dated 13-10-1987. The assessee is registered u/s.12A

ARUN KESHAVRAO NARWADE (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.185/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Arun Keshavrao Narwade –Huf, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.12, Rajnagar, Station V Ward-3(1), Aurangabad. Road, Aurangabad – 431005. S Pan: Aahha 8135 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri M.K.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Aurangabad-2 Dated 18.03.2019 Emanating From Penalty Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 30.03.2017 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2005-06. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Lawthe Penalty Under Section 271(L)(C) Levied Of Rs. 5,66,058/- By The A.O. & Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) In His Appeal Order Dt. 18-03- 2019 Is Not Justified In View Of Latest Hon'Ble Supreme Court Judgment Reported As Pr. Cit V. Golden Peace Hotels & Resorts (P.) Ltd [2021] 124 Taxmann.Com 249 (Sc) Dt. 20-22-2020. The Penalty Levied Being Illegal & Without Jurisdiction Be Quashed. Arun Keshavrao Narwade –Huf [A]

section 271(l)(c) levied of Rs. 5,66,058/- by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order dt. 18-03- 2019 is not justified in view of latest Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment reported as Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd [2021] 124 taxmann.com 249