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

275/- A.Y. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.1,27,24,855/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Ans. In A.Y. 2010-11, I have purchase the 2,50,000 shares of Rs.10 each

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

275/- A.Y. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.1,27,24,855/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Ans. In A.Y. 2010-11, I have purchase the 2,50,000 shares of Rs.10 each

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

275/- A.Y. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.1,27,24,855/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Ans. In A.Y. 2010-11, I have purchase the 2,50,000 shares of Rs.10 each

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

275/- A.Y. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.1,27,24,855/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Ans. In A.Y. 2010-11, I have purchase the 2,50,000 shares of Rs.10 each

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

275/- A.Y. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.1,27,24,855/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Ans. In A.Y. 2010-11, I have purchase the 2,50,000 shares of Rs.10 each

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

275/- A.Y. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.1,27,24,855/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Ans. In A.Y. 2010-11, I have purchase the 2,50,000 shares of Rs.10 each

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

275/- A.Y. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.1,27,24,855/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Ans. In A.Y. 2010-11, I have purchase the 2,50,000 shares of Rs.10 each

SHRI GANESH RAMCHANDRA MORE,PANVEL vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in holding that the Long Term Capital Gains on sale of the impugned property enhanced to Rs.30,00,000/- as admitted by the appellant for the reason of non-furnishing of copy of 2 purchase deed

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 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)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Section 275(1)(c) will be ITA No.1887/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Pune (A) applicable because there is no appeal against the additions made in the assessment order. The statutory time limit to pass the Penalty order is 6 months or end of the financial year whichever is later

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain on sale of land as the said land was comprised within the jurisdiction of Naya Raipur Development Authority constituted, by a Notification by Govt. of Chhatisgarh to plan, implement and administer the Naya Raipur

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain on sale of land as the said land was comprised within the jurisdiction of Naya Raipur Development Authority constituted, by a Notification by Govt. of Chhatisgarh to plan, implement and administer the Naya Raipur

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain on sale of land as the said land was comprised within the jurisdiction of Naya Raipur Development Authority constituted, by a Notification by Govt. of Chhatisgarh to plan, implement and administer the Naya Raipur

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,MALEGAON vs. ITO WARD 1, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains on transfer of immovable property on the ground that the appellant had concealed the particulars of his income without appreciating that the levy of penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2 Dinar Umeshkumar More 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 12.02.2020 is barred

GULAB GURUAPPA HULSURE,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

1, Aurangabad dt.05.10.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- 2.1 Assessee is an individual stated to be having income from salary, house property and other sources. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.07.2013 declaring 2 total income of Rs.9

KRISHAN KUMAR TARACHAND,PUNE vs. ITO (IT) WARD -2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.513/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Vs. Ito (It), Ward-2, Pune. Flat No.4, Anupam Apartments, Nda Pashan Road, Bavdhan Khurd, Pune- 411021 Pan : Abupd4503C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. (A) The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Law & In Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Merely On The Premise That The Appeal Was Filed Belatedly & Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. (B) The Ld. Nfac Erred In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Levying A Penalty Of Rs.6,09,760/- Without

Capital Gain”. 5. Later vide order dated 08-02-2024 LD CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee & consequently confirmed the penalty of Rs.6,09,760/- imposed by the AO. 6. Being aggrieved with the above said order dated 08.02.2024 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. When the present appeal