ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

purchase of self occupied house property, copy of loan account statement and the certificate from the bank regarding the payment of interest and principal. Further, the Assessing Officer also held that the assessee cannot make a new claim in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) although held that

RAJESH NIRANJAN SHAH,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jamlappa D. Battull

bogus and gross profit should be determined at 10%. Therefore, by following the finding of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dilawar R. Shaikh (supra) we direct the AO to determine gross profit at 10% on such alleged purchases. Thus, the ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised

M/S. RAJESH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(5),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jamlappa D. Battull

bogus and gross profit should be determined at 10%. Therefore, by following the finding of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dilawar R. Shaikh (supra) we direct the AO to determine gross profit at 10% on such alleged purchases. Thus, the ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

dividend. On facts, there is no dispute that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. After consideration of Section 14A, the Delhi High Court followed the decisions of certain other High Courts. Section 14A of the said Act provides that for the purpose of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

dividend. On facts, there is no dispute that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. After consideration of Section 14A, the Delhi High Court followed the decisions of certain other High Courts. Section 14A of the said Act provides that for the purpose of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

dividend. On facts, there is no dispute that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. After consideration of Section 14A, the Delhi High Court followed the decisions of certain other High Courts. Section 14A of the said Act provides that for the purpose of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

dividend. On facts, there is no dispute that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. After consideration of Section 14A, the Delhi High Court followed the decisions of certain other High Courts. Section 14A of the said Act provides that for the purpose of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

dividend. On facts, there is no dispute that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. After consideration of Section 14A, the Delhi High Court followed the decisions of certain other High Courts. Section 14A of the said Act provides that for the purpose of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

dividend. On facts, there is no dispute that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. After consideration of Section 14A, the Delhi High Court followed the decisions of certain other High Courts. Section 14A of the said Act provides that for the purpose of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

dividend. On facts, there is no dispute that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. After consideration of Section 14A, the Delhi High Court followed the decisions of certain other High Courts. Section 14A of the said Act provides that for the purpose of computing the total income, no deduction shall be allowed

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

dividend stripping held to be is not a sham and bogus and ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied. Similarly, after referring to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) and Union of India & Anr vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

dividend stripping held to be is not a sham and bogus and ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied. Similarly, after referring to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) and Union of India & Anr vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr (supra

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

purchase and sold and the sale proceeds were rightly claimed by tin appellant as income from long term capital gains and that too also exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. I agree with the reasoning and arguments offered by the appellant in the detailed submission for refuting the various reasons of the AO given in the assessment order

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

purchase and sold and the sale proceeds were rightly claimed by tin appellant as income from long term capital gains and that too also exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. I agree with the reasoning and arguments offered by the appellant in the detailed submission for refuting the various reasons of the AO given in the assessment order

SURESH CHUNNILAL SHARMA,,PARBHANI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - PARBHANI,, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1883/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

bogus, the entire amount will be disallowed without even entering into the realm of section 40A(3) of the Act. 12. Both the rival sides have relied on certain decisions fortifying their respective points of view. Por una parte, certain High Courts including the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Anupam Tele Services

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

purchase orders submitted by the assessee. & C.O. 112/PUN/2017 Bajaj Allianz General A.Y. 2007-08 iii) In the years i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y 2011-12 – the Hon‟ble Tribunal has deleted the addition/disallowance in its entirety after reconsidering the decision of A.Y 2008-09 and basis the ample evidences being submitted substantiating the genuineness of the transactions, no such

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

purchase orders submitted by the assessee. & C.O. 112/PUN/2017 Bajaj Allianz General A.Y. 2007-08 iii) In the years i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y 2011-12 – the Hon‟ble Tribunal has deleted the addition/disallowance in its entirety after reconsidering the decision of A.Y 2008-09 and basis the ample evidences being submitted substantiating the genuineness of the transactions, no such

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,83,58,184/- on by invoking