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

68 and 69 by relying on\nstatements from 'entry operators', by rejectingthe assessee's revised return claiming\nexemption under section 10(38) for long-term capital gains

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, 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

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

capital gain exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by holding as non genuine and unexplained cash credit under section 68

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the\nAssessing Officer.\n(2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under\nsection 54 and not 54E of the Act.\n(3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to\ndisallow the claim on the ground that as required under section\n54E of the Act, the assessee

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the\nAssessing Officer.\n(2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under\nsection 54 and not 54E of the Act.\n(3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to\ndisallow the claim on the ground that as required under section\n54E of the Act, the assessee

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the\nAssessing Officer.\n(2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under\nsection 54 and not 54E of the Act.\n(3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to\ndisallow the claim on the ground that as required under section\n54E of the Act, the assessee

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain as taxable and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 3. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making addition of Rs.1,00,97,902/- under section 68

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

capital gain as taxable\nand the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik has\nerred in confirming the same.\n3.\nThe learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making\naddition of Rs.1,00,97,902/- under section 68

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

68,33,360/-. A company, namely, Begu Diesel Start Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called `the Indian company‘) was incorporated on 16.10.1996. The assessee and a Germany company started business pursuant to the Joint venture agreement dated 16.12.1996. and CO No.11/PUN/2022 The assessee, along with his wife, held 51% shares in the Indian company, while the remaining 49% held by BorgWarner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

68,33,360/-. A company, namely, Begu Diesel Start Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called `the Indian company‘) was incorporated on 16.10.1996. The assessee and a Germany company started business pursuant to the Joint venture agreement dated 16.12.1996. and CO No.11/PUN/2022 The assessee, along with his wife, held 51% shares in the Indian company, while the remaining 49% held by BorgWarner

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 of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving

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 of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving

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 of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving

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 of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving

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 of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving

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 of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving