DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

260/- after claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,97,902/- as exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being the long term capital gain on sale of listed shares on which STT was paid. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, statutory notice

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

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

260/- after\nclaiming an amount of Rs.1,00,97,902/- as exempt income u/s 10(38) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being the long term\ncapital gain on sale of listed shares on which STT was paid. The case was selected\nfor scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, statutory notice

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260 6,03,87,245 **1,54,537 3.2 Against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings deleted entire additions made in assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on the ground that there was no incriminating

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

bogus and non- genuine due to non compliance of notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued to various sub-contractor. Further, during the remand report proceeding, the Ld. Assessing officer has proposed the addition of Rs.1,25,51,607/-instead of addition of Rs.4,41,21,079/- as earlier made after due verification, details

AJAY SHANTILAL LALWANI, HUF,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.717/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 133(6) of the Act to verify the genuineness of said loans. On observing the assessee’s failure to discharge of onus by the assessee, these amounts were added as income of the assessee. The said unsecured loan and the interest accrued thereon i.e. (Rs.38,79,570/-+ Rs.44,00,130/-), amounting to Rs.82,79,700/-, was added