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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

58. We find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shyam R. Pawar (supra) has held that where DMAT account and contract note showed details of share transaction and the Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

58. We find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shyam R. Pawar (supra) has held that where DMAT account and contract note showed details of share transaction and the Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 73(4) itself is applicable “where any part of the business of a company consists in purchase and sale of shares” ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., only whereas the assessee has not carried out either wholly or any part of his business in such purchase or sale of shares

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 73(4) itself is applicable “where any part of the business of a company consists in purchase and sale of shares” ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., only whereas the assessee has not carried out either wholly or any part of his business in such purchase or sale of shares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 73(4) itself is applicable “where any part of the business of a company consists in purchase and sale of shares” ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., only whereas the assessee has not carried out either wholly or any part of his business in such purchase or sale of shares

M/S. SUNNYGOLD WINERIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

58,595/-on account of interest paid on borrowed capital. The other issues raised in grounds No.3 and 4 relate to taxation of capital gains for the assessment year 2010-11 against offering the same to tax in the assessment year 2011-12 qua the provisions of section

SHEELA DEEPAK GUNDECHA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

Capital Gain at Rs.41,98,389/- denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.54 of the Act, assessed income at Rs.46,58,090/- as against Rs.4,59,700/- declared by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the assessment order. The ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by holding that since the matter of valuation

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains amounting to Rs.2,57,47,042/-. Assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd.(supra) [2022] 441 ITR 346 (SC). The Dispute Resolution Panelheld that there is no variation proposed in the Draft Assessment Order with reference to Assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IAB

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

section 2(47) of the Act. Details of purchase of the asset were not available with the AO. Same has not been produced even at this stage. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the AO is directed to re-compute capital gains on the basis of factual details, in case those are provided by the appellant

BHAGWAN RAGHUNATH PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3),, PUNE

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

58,480/-. The total consideration for the land was at Rs. 7,56,86,200/-. The A.O allowed the reinvestment to the extent of Rs. 48,33,750/-. 6. The assessee took the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted detailed written submissions. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the written submissions of the assessee as well

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 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)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 01.04.2005. The shares on which this LTCG is shown are usually the penny stocks whose prices can be easily manipulated by ITA No.78/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, (A) few unscrupulous brokers in connivance with entry operators, to provide the beneficiaries with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RANJIT HANMANTRAO MOHITE,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

58,932/- has been paid as interest as is evident from the ledger account extract. The AO it appears has not considered the aforesaid fact while deciding the issue at hand. The material on record also indicates that the appellant expecting substantial rise in the price of shares within a short period took the risk and borrowed funds with interest

JAYNA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

58-96 wherein the court held that it cannot be inferred that the assessee has manipulated the share price merely because it moved up sharply. The AO has to produce material / evidence to show that the assessee/ brokers did price rigging / manipulation of shares. The AO must also show that the relevant evidence produced by the assessee in the form

JAYANT PROMOTERS LLP (EARLIER JAYANT PROMOTERS PVT.LTD),,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -6,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1243/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jayant Promoters Llp (Earlier The Principal Commissioner Jayant Promoters Pvt. Ltd.,), Vs Of Income Tax, Pune – 6. Khandelwal Jain & Associates, . Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, Punbe – 411001. Pan: Aaccj 1265 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal & R G Nahar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Dr Date Of Hearing 06/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Pune’S Order No.Pn/Pcit-6/263/2018-19 Dated 30/05/2018, In Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gain at a lower amount. The reason being this, as per assessee’s own submission the sale consideration received is a composite cost of the flat and furniture and fixture thereto. The sale consideration received is Rs. 28,63,00,000/-. If the cost of furniture and fixture of Rs. 2,47,67,629/- is deducted from the sale

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain on adhoc basis. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following chart: Search material in case of Mr. Dilip Kotecha Date of search – search – 9/8/2011 Search Asstt Date Particulars Qty. Rate Amount materia Order l Page Page No. No. 20 29.11.10 Dellip Kotecha 25,000 154.43 38,60,850 20 1.12.10 Dellip Kotecha

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

58 Taxmann. Com 199 (Bombay) and by the Mumbai Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT in their judgement in case of Dhruv N. Shah(2004) 88 ITD 118 (Mumbai) (TM) ; 9. Once no capital gains have arisen to the assessee, there is no question of the capital gains being of long term or short term kind; 10. In the case

SMT . SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

capital gain shown by the assessee. That would have prevented him from issuing another notice u/s.148 on the same subject matter. Since the first notice dated 30-03-2015 did not elaborately record reasons to believe about the escapement of income, the action of the AO in dropping such proceedings without going into the merits and initiating fresh proceedings, cannot

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 69C of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer also noted that during the course of search action, an excel sheet containing description of land transactions involving cheque amount and on money received in cash was seized as per Annexure 4. He noted that the seized documents contain land transaction details of selling of 16 plots by the assessee

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 69C of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer also noted that during the course of search action, an excel sheet containing description of land transactions involving cheque amount and on money received in cash was seized as per Annexure 4. He noted that the seized documents contain land transaction details of selling of 16 plots by the assessee