DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

depreciation and discussed the reasons as to why such additional income is not available for such set off. CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 69 to 69C

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

depreciation and discussed the reasons as to why such additional income is not available for such set off. CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 69 to 69C

ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANNAPURNA MAHILA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

depreciation debited to income & expenditure account is treated to be unexplained within the meaning of section 69C of the Income

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

section 69C of the Act relates to unexplained expenditure etc.” and described the same as “unaccounted expenditure”. There is difference between “unaccounted expenditure” and 13 “unexplained expenditure”. The Assessing Officer erroneously mentioned the expenditure as “unaccounted expenditure” instead of “unexplained expenditure”. The said mistake was not rectified by the CIT(A) too though he used the expression “unaccounted expenditure

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

section 69C of the Act relates to unexplained expenditure etc.” and described the same as “unaccounted expenditure”. There is difference between “unaccounted expenditure” and 13 “unexplained expenditure”. The Assessing Officer erroneously mentioned the expenditure as “unaccounted expenditure” instead of “unexplained expenditure”. The said mistake was not rectified by the CIT(A) too though he used the expression “unaccounted expenditure

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

section 69C of the Act relates to unexplained expenditure etc.” and described the same as “unaccounted expenditure”. There is difference between “unaccounted expenditure” and 13 “unexplained expenditure”. The Assessing Officer erroneously mentioned the expenditure as “unaccounted expenditure” instead of “unexplained expenditure”. The said mistake was not rectified by the CIT(A) too though he used the expression “unaccounted expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

69C, 40A(3), 40(a)(ia), 37, 14A etc. The details of the additions as appearing on page 40 of the assessment order are extracted as under : “Disallowance as per Para No.6 Rs.5,84,736 Disallowance as per Para No.7 Rs.2,00,000 Disallowance/Addn. as per Para No.8 Rs.45,69,900 Disallowance as per Para No.9 Rs.16,74,572 Disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

69C, 40A(3), 40(a)(ia), 37, 14A etc. The details of the additions as appearing on page 40 of the assessment order are extracted as under : “Disallowance as per Para No.6 Rs.5,84,736 Disallowance as per Para No.7 Rs.2,00,000 Disallowance/Addn. as per Para No.8 Rs.45,69,900 Disallowance as per Para No.9 Rs.16,74,572 Disallowance

OLIVE TREE TRADING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 69C of the IT Act and thereby erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs. 66,39,484/- 2 ITA No.899/PUN/2024

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

69C of the Act. (Refer Para 7.5 on Page 13 of the order of the AO). D. Regarding the fourth issue on the applicability of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act towards the cash expenses discovered during the survey action, the assessee submitted the following written submissions: In support of his arguments, assessee relied on the following judgments/decisions

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

69C of the Act. (Refer Para 7.5 on Page 13 of the order of the AO). D. Regarding the fourth issue on the applicability of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act towards the cash expenses discovered during the survey action, the assessee submitted the following written submissions: In support of his arguments, assessee relied on the following judgments/decisions

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

69C of the Act. (Refer Para 7.5 on Page 13 of the order of the AO). D. Regarding the fourth issue on the applicability of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act towards the cash expenses discovered during the survey action, the assessee submitted the following written submissions: In support of his arguments, assessee relied on the following judgments/decisions

MAHENDRA PRAKASH PAWAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 69C of the Act for unexplained investment. The impugned addition has been made for the unexplained payment for credit card dues and the details of the same are as under : IndusInd Bank Rs.9,73,444/- Syndicate Bank Rs.10,49,989/- ICICI Bank Rs.14,65,500/- Total Rs.21,69,933/- 8. Now from the above details filed before

SMT. SUNITA G. DESAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2761/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Sunitag.Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Master Plaza, Jakadevi, Vs Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Khalgaon, Ratnagiri. Pan: Abopd 2868 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 01.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao) In Assessing Total Income Of Appellant At Rs, 50,34,254/- Instead Of Returned Income Of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Additionof Rs.33,79,054/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S 69C Of The Ita, 1961 For The Bogus Purchases From M/S. Adijin Enterprises & M/S. Hiten Enterprises; Without Appreciating That, No Any Enquiries Were Carried Out By The L-T Authorities In This Regard. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, The Said Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 33,79,054/- Were, Intact, Capitalized To Plant & Machinery & Depreciation Of Only Rs. 5,06,958/- (I.E. 15% Of Rs. 33,79,054/-) Was Claimed As A Deduction By Appellant During Ay 2009-10. The Learned

69C of the ITA, 1961 for the bogus purchases from M/s. Adijin Enterprises and M/s. Hiten Enterprises; without appreciating that, no any enquiries were carried out by the l-T Authorities in this regard. 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur and the learned AO erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that, the said bogus purchases

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation. Consequently, this element to determine the valuation of the unquoted equity shares is to be considered in a broader way. 5.2.6 Further while determining the deeming income under the Income Tax Act, various concepts are there such as Safe Harbor Rule, Section 50C etc for dealing with the practical difficulties and uncertainties. However, the section 50CA is silent