NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the above addition made by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO by observing as under : “4.3 I have gone through the grounds

MAGARAJ MISHRIMAL RATHI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

unexplained money. In this regard, it is submitted that the assessee is a business man engaged in sale of Sarees and 5 advertising business and has disclosed taxable income of Rs.22,48,700/- during the period under consideration and out of the business cash receipt, Rs.1,88,000/- was deposited in bank. It was further submitted that on 04.04.2016 agricultural

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

money of Rs.8.40 crore from 15 share holding companies are unexplained credits and deserves to be added u/s.68 of the Act. Income assessed at Rs.8,40,49,890/-. 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) challenging the validity of the reopening proceedings along with the addition made u/s.68 of the Act. However, assessee failed to succeed. Finding of ld.CIT

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not in appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same. 9. So far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing as under

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not\nin appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same.\n9.\nSo far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/-\nis concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing\nas under

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not in appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same. 9. So far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing as under

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. An addition of Rs.4,55,00,000/- is therefore made to the income of the assessee. [Addition: Rs. 4,55,00,000/-] 6. Before the CIT(A) the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment on the ground that the reasons for reopening

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)

unexplained expenditure in his statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, which has an evidentiary value until not proven otherwise along with supporting documentary evidences. 11. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance made of Rs.1,49,910/- out of agricultural income only

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

money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of proof, the tax officer is entitled

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

money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of proof, the tax officer is entitled

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

money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of proof, the tax officer is entitled

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

money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of proof, the tax officer is entitled

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

money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of proof, the tax officer is entitled

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.97,03,015/-. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, it was argued that the assessee got allotted 20000 shares of Rs.10 each of Anax Com Trade limited in private placement on 15.09.2012. The same were registered in the name

MAHAVIR FLEET OPERATORS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemahavir Fleet Operators Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Gat No. 1349, Khandvenagar, Of Income Tax, Wagholi, Pune – 412307 Circle – 11(2), Pune Vs. Pan : Aafcm9834N

unexplained share capital. The appellant had not submitted financial statements as per the Companies Act. Discrepancies has been noted in tax audit report and financial statements submitted by the appellant. The audit report submitted does not reflect true state of affairs. Balances for two year are not shown. As per the balance sheet Rs. 45 Lacs has been raised

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

depreciation in case of our company is 1.08 crore wheras in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 0.42 Crore. (h) Net profit before tax in case of our company is 27.53 Crore whereas in the case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 2.02 Crore in terms of percentage it works out to 8.32% whereas

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

depreciation in case of our company is 1.08 crore wheras in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 0.42 Crore. (h) Net profit before tax in case of our company is 27.53 Crore whereas in the case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 2.02 Crore in terms of percentage it works out to 8.32% whereas

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

depreciation in case of our company is 1.08 crore wheras in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 0.42 Crore. (h) Net profit before tax in case of our company is 27.53 Crore whereas in the case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 2.02 Crore in terms of percentage it works out to 8.32% whereas