DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

purchases to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/- are fictitious/bogus and claimed as expenditure in I&E account of Assessee trust. Considering the above facts, it is clear that assessee trust has claimed bogus expenditure resulting in incorrect claim of application of income leading to underassessment of total income of Assessee trust to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/-. Therefore

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

151] (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures in the case of CIT (Central) Kolkata vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in [87 ITR 349], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims

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 151(2) r.w.s.149(1)(a) of the Income tax Act 1961.” 5. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that a search and survey operation u/s 132/133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 16.05 2018 by the office of the DDIT (Inv.), Unit 3-(3), Delhi on Dutta and Tyagi group and during

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

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), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that a subject

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

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), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that a subject

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

purchase and sale of the shares are\nconcentrated within few person/entities.\n2. 2. The DDIT (Inv) has traded in the above script namely M/s Nivyah\nInfrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd during the F.Y. 2010-11 to the tune\nof Rs.35040000000000000000.\n2. 3. The DDIT (Inv) Unit - 8 (3) Mumbai has given a finding that enquiries\nhave been conducted in the penny

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

section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting the\nsale

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

section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting the\nsale

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

section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting the\nsale

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

151 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 20.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs.16,79,227/-. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for re-opening of the case which were provided to the assessee on 10.05.2018. Further, the assessee vide letter dated 01.06.2018 objected

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

151 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 20.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs.16,79,227/-. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for re-opening of the case which were provided to the assessee on 10.05.2018. Further, the assessee vide letter dated 01.06.2018 objected

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

151 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 20.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs.16,79,227/-. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for re-opening of the case which were provided to the assessee on 10.05.2018. Further, the assessee vide letter dated 01.06.2018 objected

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

151 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 20.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs.16,79,227/-. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for re-opening of the case which were provided to the assessee on 10.05.2018. Further, the assessee vide letter dated 01.06.2018 objected

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

151 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 20.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs.16,79,227/-. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for re-opening of the case which were provided to the assessee on 10.05.2018. Further, the assessee vide letter dated 01.06.2018 objected

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

151 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 20.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs.16,79,227/-. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for re-opening of the case which were provided to the assessee on 10.05.2018. Further, the assessee vide letter dated 01.06.2018 objected

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

151 of the Act. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 20.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs.16,79,227/-. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for re-opening of the case which were provided to the assessee on 10.05.2018. Further, the assessee vide letter dated 01.06.2018 objected

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

2 to section 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2019 after obtaining approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. 8. During the appellate proceedings, it was stated by the Ld. AR that there was no material before the AO on the basis of which such belief could have been made and therefore, such reasons were arbitrary

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

151 is obtained on the reasons recorded. C. The Approval alongwith proposal clearly shows that it was only proposal and there is no finding about the reason to believe. D. The appellant has discharged the burden u/s 68 by furnishing the supporting documents. E. There is no material to show that the money is unaccounted income of the appellant