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

capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry\nin the case of the said broker

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 of Rs. 85,38,145/- as exempted from sale of shares of YICL. 5.3.1 It is further seen from the Investigation report that in this scheme, the shares of the penny stock companies are acquired by the beneficiaries of LTCG at very low prices through the route of preferential allotment and off market transactions, then granting the bonus

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 shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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 shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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 shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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 shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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 shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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 shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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 shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise\nthat entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of\naccommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by\nassessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of\nshares.\n7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon\nexamining

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

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

gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being commission paid @ 3% of such bogus LTCG

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

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

gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being commission paid @ 3% of such bogus LTCG

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

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

gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being commission paid @ 3% of such bogus LTCG

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.1,00,08,355/- from the sale of 200,000 shares of Mishkafin Finance and Trading Ltd. (MFTL), claiming exemption under Section 10(38). The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained money under Section 69A and added it to the income.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reassessment

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

gain or Short Term Capital Loss in their books of accounts. It was noticed that share price of M/s. Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd rose from Rs.39 on 2nd July 2009 to Rs.2050 on 5th Jan 2011and dipped to Rs.47.20 on 15th July 2012. However, the financials of the company for the relevant period do not show any substantial change

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

Reassessment Order]\nIn fact, the impugned immovable property is sold by my father Mr. Dilipkumar Hiralal Agarwal Saraf\n[PAN: AELPA1854K], who has offered the same to taxation fully and paid the relevant capital gains

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

capital gain’ as has been originally declared it as ‘business income’ in the books. It is clearly a case of re-classification of income and cannot be considered as under reporting or misreporting of income. 7 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited 11. Though assessee has referred various decisions in the case law paper book referred (supra), I however taking note

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