Search: depreciation

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1133/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 36

section 13 of the Act. AO also suspected the siphoning of funds by the trustees and eventually, held that trust funds are diverted for the benefits of the principal trustee. AO referred to the addition of item No.5 (page 4 N- ante) and mentioned that securing of loans without providing the guarantee and without charging of interest, constitutes the case

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1134/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 36

section 13 of the Act. AO also suspected the siphoning of funds by the trustees and eventually, held that trust funds are diverted for the benefits of the principal trustee. AO referred to the addition of item No.5 (page 4 N- ante) and mentioned that securing of loans without providing the guarantee and without charging of interest, constitutes the case

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1147/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 36

section 13 of the Act. AO also suspected the siphoning of funds by the trustees and eventually, held that trust funds are diverted for the benefits of the principal trustee. AO referred to the addition of item No.5 (page 4 N- ante) and mentioned that securing of loans without providing the guarantee and without charging of interest, constitutes the case

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act against the assessee for his failure to gets its accounts audited. The ld. AR contends that there were no sales or purchase made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments, unexplained other investments and unexplained profit on sale of land to an extent

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1300/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act against the assessee for his failure to gets its accounts audited. The ld. AR contends that there were no sales or purchase made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments, unexplained other investments and unexplained profit on sale of land to an extent

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1302/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act against the assessee for his failure to gets its accounts audited. The ld. AR contends that there were no sales or purchase made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments, unexplained other investments and unexplained profit on sale of land to an extent

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1304/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act against the assessee for his failure to gets its accounts audited. The ld. AR contends that there were no sales or purchase made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments, unexplained other investments and unexplained profit on sale of land to an extent

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

271B of the Act against the assessee for his failure to gets its accounts audited. The ld. AR contends that there were no sales or purchase made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments, unexplained other investments and unexplained profit on sale of land to an extent