KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such

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

1) of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on 04/11/2017 in the\ncase of Ashok B Jain & Others. The case of Shri Manoj M Chhajed is one\nof the cases belonging to Ashok B Jain & Others group. During the course\nof search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on\n04/11/2017 located at A8-601, Karishma Housing Society, Kothrud

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

1) of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on 04/11/2017 in the\ncase of Ashok B Jain & Others. The case of Shri Manoj M Chhajed is one\nof the cases belonging to Ashok B Jain & Others group. During the course\nof search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on\n04/11/2017 located at A8-601, Karishma Housing Society, Kothrud

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

b) of the Act on account of interest paid on housing loan amounting to Rs.2 lakh resulting in loss of Rs.2 lakh which has been set off against the other income of the previous year. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish evidence in respect of housing loan availed, copy of the loan account statement and the certificate from

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

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 of payment of consideration in cash over and above the apparent consideration at the time of purchase of property at Paud

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. Thus there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the AO. There was independent application of mind on the part of the AO. Further reliance is placed upon clause (b) of explanation

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

149 for issue of notice for income escaping below Rupees Fifty Lakhs, is only three years. 7. The Appellate Commissioner erred in rejecting the claim of exemption of long-term capital gains u/s 10(38) of Rs.34,25,064/-. 8. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, in invoking the provision of section

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

149\nТахтапп.com 170 (2023) - wherein it has been held \"Admittedly, the amount\nwas received by the assessee after cessation of his employment with the\nemployer company. In the normal course, section 17(3)(iii) of the Act would\napply and the payment would be covered within the definition of profit in lieu\nof salary as brought