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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed.\n19. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nPCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the\nHon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed\nexemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

sections": [ "132", "153A", "143(3)", "153B", "147", "148", "68", "10(38)", "69C", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,61,00,000/- made on account of unsecured loan

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

section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore, Ground No. 5 and 6 succeed.\n\n10. Since

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

section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore, Ground No. 5 and 6 succeed.\n\n10. Since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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 proceedings were initiated on a \"mere change of opinion\" without any fresh material. The assessee had fulfilled all conditions for exemption under Section 10