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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain and added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that the A.O. himself has stated that

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

4. Subsequently on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Nashik, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment as per provisions of section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACIT CEN CIR 2, NASHIK To, SIDHARTH

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

4. Subsequently on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Nashik, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment as per provisions of section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACIT CEN CIR 2, NASHIK To, SIDHARTH

SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

132 of the Act on 06.08.2013 in the case of STES and 2 Maruti Nivruti Navale group, Pune. The Ld. PCIT noted that as per the examination of the seized material and post-search enquiries conducted, it was gathered that STES had indulged in activities which were not in accordance with the objects specified in the trust deed

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives\nor separate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n(c) the trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

132 of the Act was conducted in Emcure Group on 16/12/2020. During the search action, the assessee trust was identified as beneficiary of sponsorship of its activities by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and its associate concerns.\n1.3 Simultaneously a survey action was conducted u/s 133 of the Act on the assessee trust, in which various incriminating documents/digital evidences of providing freebies

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

132 of the Act was conducted in\nEmcure Group on 16/12/2020. During the search action, the assessee trust\nwas identified as beneficiary of sponsorship of its activities by Emcure\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. and its associate concerns.\n1.3 Simultaneously a survey action was conducted u/s 133 of the Act\non the assessee trust, in which various incriminating documents/digital\nevidences of providing freebies

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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein the assessee

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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein the assessee

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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein the assessee

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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein the assessee

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

capital gain on sale of share at Rs.1,44,35,387/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Mantri Group of Jalna on 02.05.2013 wherein the assessee