INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 69A which considers only unrecorded value of money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 69A which considers only unrecorded value of money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 69A which considers only unrecorded value of money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 69A which considers only unrecorded value of money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 69A which considers only unrecorded value of money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin

AMARLAL THAVARDAS PANJWANI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the I. T. Act, are initiated. As per information the assessee has deposited Rs. 89,64,612/- with M/s Reunuka Mata Multi State Co-op. Credit Society during the F.Y. 2012-13 source of 2 Amarlal Thavardas Panjwani ITA no.262/Nag./2024 which has not been explained even after providing ample opportunities. As such

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA ,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment of the said issue. However he added one more issue (which was not a part of limited scrutiny) viz. A.O. to examine cash balance of Rs.23,87,017/- and bank balance of Rs. 19,22,485/- in Akola Janta Coop. Bank Ltd. The Ld. Pr.C.I.T had passed the said order without properly applying

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 , AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment of the said issue. However he added one more issue (which was not a part of limited scrutiny) viz. A.O. to examine cash balance of Rs.23,87,017/- and bank balance of Rs. 19,22,485/- in Akola Janta Coop. Bank Ltd. The Ld. Pr.C.I.T had passed the said order without properly applying

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

MAITHILI MILIND RANE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c).\"\nAs the assessee has claimed that it has made investment of ₹\n13,82,000/- in the F.Y. 2012–13, the Ld. Commissioner, thus in\norder to verify the factual aspects, had sought for remand report\nfrom the A.O., who more or less reiterated the addition made by the\nA.O. Ld.Commissioner forwarded the remand report

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee\nsatisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus\ntowards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the\nabove observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based on\nconjectures