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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as deduction. 29. On the other hand, ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the expenditure which does not qualify for weighted deduction can be allowed as revenue expenditure either under the provisions of section 35(1)(iv) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. He submits that this issue was covered by the decision

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D. the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement with the view taken

PRITESH RATANSHI VED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JALGAON

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital gains and also income from other sources and has not filed his return of income. As per information available on AIMS module of ITBA, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold immovable property of Rs.1,59,63,000/- and also purchased immovable property of Rs.90 lakh, and has deposited cash of Rs.42 lakh and has also paid

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

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

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

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

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

149(1)(b) of the I T Act, 1961.\nSd/-\n(Naganath B Pasale, IRS)\nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle-1(1), Pune\"\n4.\nAccordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018. The\nassessee in response to the same vide letter dated 11.09.2018 requested the\nAssessing Officer to consider the return of income filed

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

Capital Gain Rs.24,00,000/- \n5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, the appellant presents this appeal before Your Honor.\"\n5.1 Inspite of providing documentary evidence that assessee is not the owner of the impugned property, her father is owner and her father has paid entire

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

1. CIT Vs. J. Dalmia 149 ITR 215 (Delhi 2. CIT Vs. Abbashboy A. Dehgamwalla 195 ITR 28 (Bom.) 3. Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj.) 4. Dhruv N. Shah 88 ITD 118 (Mumb Trib.) 12. We heard both the sides, perused the orders of the Revenue authorities on the issue of taxability of capital

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI VASANTRAO LAXMAN KHANDGE,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1971/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gains by increasing cost of acquisition and / or suppression the sale consideration. Reference is also made to the statement of Shri Ganesh Khandge, the person ITA Nos.2057 & 2056/PUN/2014 searched, which was recorded under section 131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI DATTATRAYA LAXMAN KHANDGE,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1971/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gains by increasing cost of acquisition and / or suppression the sale consideration. Reference is also made to the statement of Shri Ganesh Khandge, the person ITA Nos.2057 & 2056/PUN/2014 searched, which was recorded under section 131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment

D.L. KHANDGE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1971/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gains by increasing cost of acquisition and / or suppression the sale consideration. Reference is also made to the statement of Shri Ganesh Khandge, the person ITA Nos.2057 & 2056/PUN/2014 searched, which was recorded under section 131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment

V.L. KHANDGE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1971/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gains by increasing cost of acquisition and / or suppression the sale consideration. Reference is also made to the statement of Shri Ganesh Khandge, the person ITA Nos.2057 & 2056/PUN/2014 searched, which was recorded under section 131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment

LATE SHRI BABANLAL B AGARWAL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGAON

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

capital gains by increasing cost of acquisition and / or suppression the sale consideration. Reference is also made to the statement of Shri Ganesh Khandge, the person searched, which was recorded under section 131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and notice under