BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

44 results for “capital gains”+ Section 171clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai538Delhi371Bangalore168Karnataka113Jaipur107Chandigarh69Chennai68Ahmedabad63Raipur55Hyderabad54Kolkata51Pune44Indore44Cuttack35Cochin33Lucknow32Guwahati24Calcutta18Nagpur16Amritsar12Visakhapatnam9SC9Surat8Ranchi6Panaji4Telangana4Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Rajkot3Dehradun2Jodhpur2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Patna1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 17173Section 54B24Section 26319Addition to Income19Section 270A18Section 14817Section 12A12Section 201(1)12Deduction12Section 147

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

171 ITD 116 has held as under : Quote “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In the facts of the present case, the assessee had declared income under the head Long Term Capital Gain and claimed deduction under section

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

11
Long Term Capital Gains10
Survey u/s 133A10

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

171 ITD 116 has held as under : Quote “We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In the facts of the present case, the assessee had declared income under the head Long Term Capital Gain and claimed deduction under section

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2791/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 269USection 41(1)Section 53A

171 (Mum.) [2011] in identical facts held as under: *Section 2(47) defines 'transfer' in relation of capital asset to mean sale, exchange or relinquishment of the assets etc. Clause (v) of sub-section (47) of section 2 provides that any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

section 263 of the Act, it 6 has been mentioned that the powers of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. It is undisputed fact that the matter of "Cost of Improvement claimed by the assessee for arising at Capital Gains is not a subject

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1887/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Section 2(14)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

171 (Madras) has held as under: Quote, “4. The assessment for the year under consideration, AY 2012-13 was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 12-3-2015. During the course of the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold two landed properties at Kalapatti and Dharapuram and the capital gain

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ JUGALKISHOR GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 172/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 131Section 54B

Capital Gains arising on the sale of land. The claim of the assessees was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to qualify the condition i.e. the land should have been used 5 ITA Nos. 171, 172 & 173/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 by the assessee or his parents for agricultural purpose in immediately two preceding years from

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ SATYANARAYAN GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 171/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 131Section 54B

Capital Gains arising on the sale of land. The claim of the assessees was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to qualify the condition i.e. the land should have been used 5 ITA Nos. 171, 172 & 173/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 by the assessee or his parents for agricultural purpose in immediately two preceding years from

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ MURLIDHAR GIRDHARILAL, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 173/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 131Section 54B

Capital Gains arising on the sale of land. The claim of the assessees was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to qualify the condition i.e. the land should have been used 5 ITA Nos. 171, 172 & 173/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 by the assessee or his parents for agricultural purpose in immediately two preceding years from

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

capital gain and offered it to tax. He also submitted that reclassification of income cannot be made liable for penalty and further it is a bonafide case and there is no concealment of particulars of income. He further submitted that even on legal ground in absence of specifying sub-clause 270A(9) of the Act initiation and levy of penalty

SMT. ASHA H. GUNDESHA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 142(1)Section 51Section 54F

171/- for A.Y.2010-11 for which she has also claimed a deduction of Rs.21,93,054/- u/s.54F of the I.T. Act and accordingly, Net Capital Gain of Rs.28,45,117/- was offered to tax by her during A.Y.2010-11. The Assessing Officer opined that, as per the provisions of Sec. 51 of the I. T. Act, the Assessee should have offered

ABHISHEK ASHOK LOHADE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

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

ITA 816/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.816/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Abhishek Ashok Lohade, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Nashik. 15, Subharda Hsg. Soc., Opp. Circle Cinema, Ashok Stambh, Nashik-422001. Pan : Acepl6296R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From The Execution Of Contracts Etc. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 31.03.2015 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.3,13,680/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Nashik (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 28.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

171/- by holding that the transactions of purchase of shares of SRK Industries Ltd. and subsequent sale is nothing but a bogus transaction by relying upon the investigation report by the Investigation Wing of the Department and the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The Assessing Officer had also analyzed the modus operandi adopted by the appellant

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 1980/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

section 270A of the Act. The penalty amounts are calculated as under - The amount of under reporting of income 18,74,800 Tax on assessed income 3,18,956 Tax liability of returned income (no original return of - income filed) Tax on 'under-reporting of income in consequence of 3,18,956 misreporting. Penalty on 'under-reporting of income

SHITAL PRAVIN JAIKRISHNIA,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

171/-. The Ld.AR submitted that since the quantum addition has been deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable. Submission of LD.DR : 3. Ld.DR accepted that after the order of CIT(A) income of the assessee has been reduced to loss. 2 Finding and Analysis: 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is mentioned

UJWAL FINE HOMES,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 491/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.491/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ujwal Fine Homes, V The Principal High Bliss, S No.23, Dhayri S Commissioner Of Income Narhe Road, Pune – 411041. Tax, Pune -3, Pune. Pan; Aabfu7293E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune U/Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 09.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In Issuing The Notice U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2018-19

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 171Section 263

171 of the GST Act it was mandatory for the assessee to refund the amounts to the Extent of Input Credit availed. 4.5 Assessee claimed that subsequently to the extent of Input Credit claimed by the assessee, the assessee has refunded some amount to flat purchasers. However, the assessee has not filed copies of ledger accounts to explain the amount

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1264/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 53ASection 54BSection 54F

gain arising on sale of the said agricultural land situated at village Mukalwadi Pirangut, Taluka Mulshi, Pune is exempt from taxation as the said land is not capital asset as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of ITA, 1961. 9. The appellant craves leave to add/modify/amend/delete all / any of the grounds of appeal. 10. The Ld. Counsel

CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare & Shri D.Y. PanditFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 10Section 147Section 17Section 28Section 56

gains is to be assessed under the head 'income from other sources'. However, for applicability of Section 14 and thereafter Section 56, what is required is the receipt in the nature of income. In Circular No.447, it has been clearly stated "In view of this, it is clarified that such awards in the cases of a sportsman

NANDU ATMARAM WAJEKAR,PANVEL RAIGAD DISTRICT vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL RAIGAD

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

ITA 66/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bharat H ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 147Section 183Section 183(1)Section 184Section 185Section 187(1)Section 187(3)Section 197

171/-. And the Assessment 6 completed for Assessment Years 2018-19 u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act Hence Total Revenue / Sales from Kumar Siddhachal Project is Rs.27,59,92,000/-. Total Profit Declared for above Project is Rs. 19,50,33,312/-. Enclosed here with please find Ledger Extracts of Customers showing

MUSTAFA ALIHUSAIN SUNELWALA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

171 taxmann.com 133 (Pune-Trib.), the Ld. AR submitted that if the penalty notice does not mention which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredients of sub-section (9) of section 270A is specified, mere reference to the word misreporting in the assessment order for imposition of penalty is manifestly arbitrary and deserves

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -1,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1609/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C of the Act the amount for addition cannot exceed the difference between unaccounted expenditure and unaccounted income declared by the assessee. In this regard, the assessee submitted the following written submissions : “3.1 The peak credit of negative cash balance was submitted to the CIT(A), which

DY. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE vs. GERA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 767/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C of the Act the amount for addition cannot exceed the difference between unaccounted expenditure and unaccounted income declared by the assessee. In this regard, the assessee submitted the following written submissions : “3.1 The peak credit of negative cash balance was submitted to the CIT(A), which