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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL

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.

disallowing exemption claimed u/s. 10(38) of Rs. 1.93.17.241and treating it as income ITA No.78/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, (A) from other sources u/s.56 of the 1 T Act. without any cogent reasons and bringing any evidence on record in support to his contentions. Thus. A.O's finding may please be vacated

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being

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

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

penny stock company wherein he has earned bogus LTCG. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed the requisite details. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submissions made by the assessee. After considering the findings of the search/survey, inquires conducted in the case of assessee, the brokers, operators and the entry providers and the nature

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

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL

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

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL

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

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RAKESH MOTILAL SHARMA,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2123 & 2124/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15

stock exchange in the light of the concerned companies profit & loss a/c, balance sheet, net- worth, total assets & liabilities and all other relevant aspects. He further took us to page no.12 onwards in assessment order indicating the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion as well as the DIT (Investigation’s report) in order A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rakesh M. Sharma

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RAKESH MOTILAL SHARMA,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2123 & 2124/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15

stock exchange in the light of the concerned companies profit & loss a/c, balance sheet, net- worth, total assets & liabilities and all other relevant aspects. He further took us to page no.12 onwards in assessment order indicating the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion as well as the DIT (Investigation’s report) in order A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rakesh M. Sharma

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

penny stock and therefore, those decisions which are based on the facts in those particular cases, are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 23. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in denying