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

capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

153B, pass the assessment order under sub- section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which,— (a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions

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

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

153B of the Act on 30.11.2016 accepting the income returned. 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: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 5. He, therefore, issued notice

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

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

153B of the Act on 30.11.2016 accepting the income returned. 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: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 5. He, therefore, issued notice

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

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

153B of the Act on 30.11.2016 accepting the income returned. 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: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 5. He, therefore, issued notice

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

153B and 153C of the Act and recourse of regular proceedings are barred. [para 64] Therefore, as the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has interpreted the decisions in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra) and VSL Mining Company Private Limited (supra) as above, it would be incorrect for a lower forum to hold another view. 3.10 It is pertinent to mention here

ACIT,CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd. 118 TTJ 354 wherein it has been observed as under: “41. The learned DR had also raised some objection to the revised margin of profit shown by the taxpayer by taking lower rate of depreciation. This objection in our opinion is without any substance. The depreciation is required to be worked out under the Indian Companies

SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd. 118 TTJ 354 wherein it has been observed as under: “41. The learned DR had also raised some objection to the revised margin of profit shown by the taxpayer by taking lower rate of depreciation. This objection in our opinion is without any substance. The depreciation is required to be worked out under the Indian Companies

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

153B at a total income of Rs.1,46,94,826/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a penalty notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271AAA of the Act, wherein, the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied for the reason that disclosure of amount of Rs.1 crore was made only with the intention to buy mental

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

153B at a total income of Rs.1,46,94,826/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a penalty notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271AAA of the Act, wherein, the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied for the reason that disclosure of amount of Rs.1 crore was made only with the intention to buy mental

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

153B at a total income of Rs.1,46,94,826/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a penalty notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271AAA of the Act, wherein, the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied for the reason that disclosure of amount of Rs.1 crore was made only with the intention to buy mental