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

section 68 without bringing on record any material or evidence to prove that the long term capital gain declared by the Appellant is an accommodation entry against which appellant paid cash. 13 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified.\n20. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of\nChanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he\nsubmitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where\naddition based on penny stock transaction had already

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

68 adopted by the AO, which was\nordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of\nsection 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted\non 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting\napproach, while the AO has also touched upon this issue in para

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

68,00,000 85,00,000 22 Land with Santosh 90,00,000 1,10,00,000 Jain 168 Miscellaneous 1,00,00,000 2,37,00,000 Total 6,27,20,500 D. The ld. CIT(A) on analysis of the notings at page no.2, 3, 13, 22 and 168 of bundle no.1 held that there is evidence

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

68 adopted by the AO, which was ordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of section 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted on 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting approach, while the AO has also touched upon this issue in para

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

68 adopted by the AO, which was ordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of section 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted on 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting approach, while the AO has also touched upon this issue in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT, 248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya, 332 ITR 537 (Kerala), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak, 350 ITR 71 (Kerala). 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidavits dated 16.04.2014 notarized on 19.04.2014, we find that all these

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , LATUR vs. VIMAL JAYDEV ARYA, LATUR

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

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

section 68/ 69 of the IT Act, 1961.In many cases, the depositors may be mere name-lenders. 4. Details of your assessee: Details as provided in the enclosed excel sheet contains Name (surname first) and PAN of the assessees along with their account numbers of account held by them in the Society. Financial Year-wise credits have been provided

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

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

section 68/ 69 of the IT Act, 1961.In many cases, the depositors may be mere name-lenders. 4. Details of your assessee: Details as provided in the enclosed excel sheet contains Name (surname first) and PAN of the assessees along with their account numbers of account held by them in the Society. Financial Year-wise credits have been provided

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

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

section 68/ 69 of the IT Act, 1961.In many cases, the depositors may be mere name-lenders. 4. Details of your assessee: Details as provided in the enclosed excel sheet contains Name (surname first) and PAN of the assessees along with their account numbers of account held by them in the Society. Financial Year-wise credits have been provided

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores in the original return of income filed and subsequently after the search, the declaration was made