RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

undisclosed income, it is precisely for this reason that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made in the completed assessments. section 153A is not de novo assessment; therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

undisclosed income, it is precisely for this reason that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made in the completed assessments. section 153A is not de novo assessment; therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

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

undisclosed income, notwithstanding that returns for these years have already been processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. 28. So far as the decision relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Sejal Jewellery & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra), he submitted that the said decision is distinguishable and not applicable

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

undisclosed income should be taxed at special rates provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. 24. In the present case, since the nature of additional income is not clearly explained during the survey nor during assessment proceedings and the appellant has not demonstrated that the said income is flowing from business, with the help of supporting evidences, therefore, the action

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

undisclosed income should be taxed at special rates provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. 24. In the present case, since the nature of additional income is not clearly explained during the survey nor during assessment proceedings and the appellant has not demonstrated that the said income is flowing from business, with the help of supporting evidences, therefore, the action

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

undisclosed income should be taxed at special rates provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. 24. In the present case, since the nature of additional income is not clearly explained during the survey nor during assessment proceedings and the appellant has not demonstrated that the said income is flowing from business, with the help of supporting evidences, therefore, the action

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

undisclosed income should be taxed at special rates provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. 24. In the present case, since the nature of additional income is not clearly explained during the survey nor during assessment proceedings and the appellant has not demonstrated that the said income is flowing from business, with the help of supporting evidences, therefore, the action

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

undisclosed income should be taxed at special rates provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. 24. In the present case, since the nature of additional income is not clearly explained during the survey nor during assessment proceedings and the appellant has not demonstrated that the said income is flowing from business, with the help of supporting evidences, therefore, the action

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

undisclosed income with respective to two documents/loose papers, which two disclosures were purely to buy peace and to avoid litigation. (iv) As far as the present appeal is concerned, the relevant question and answer are Q & A 12. In this answer, the director surrendered Rs. 1,37,73,000/- towards provision of additional amenities. A very important aspect is that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

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

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under\nthis Act has been computed;\n(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information\nor document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-\nsection (2) of section 133C

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

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.

depreciation claimed by the appellant in the earlier years as the assets have now been held to be stock in trade by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3,89,26,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in Revenue recognized

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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.

depreciation claimed by the appellant in the earlier years as the assets have now been held to be stock in trade by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3,89,26,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in Revenue recognized

MR. ASHWIN RAJENDRA BADE,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1892/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

depreciation, remuneration and interest 3 Ashwin Rajendra Bade Less : Survey declaration Rs.79,96,450/- Total Rs.20,60,190/- Add : Deemed Income u/s.69A Rs.79,96,450/- w.r.t.115BBE Total income Rs.1,00,56,640/- Total Assessed Income R/o. to Rs.1,00,56,640/- the nearest ten 3. Subsequently, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the impugned addition of Rs.79

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned thereafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment

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

depreciation is of Rs.31,61,21,110/-. It was submitted that the net profit earned on derivative transactions referred to in the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been properly accounted for in the Profit and Loss Account and there is no attempt to avoid income tax. It was accordingly requested to drop the proceedings initiated

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

depreciation is of Rs.31,61,21,110/-. It was submitted that the net profit earned on derivative transactions referred to in the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been properly accounted for in the Profit and Loss Account and there is no attempt to avoid income tax. It was accordingly requested to drop the proceedings initiated

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance has been computed under the provisions of the Act. The very fact that reasons are recorded and notice u/s 148 11 was issued goes to show that the AO had applied his mind and was satisfied himself about the re-opening of the case. The IT Act envisages that the AO should only have