POONA OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

disallowed the benefit of the exemption for\ncommission provided to doctors engaged in private practice for referring\ntheir patients to the assessee's diagnostic centre, holding that:\n"It, thus, emerges that an assessee would not be entitled to\ndeduction of payments made in contravention of law. Similarly,\npayments which are opposed to public policy being in the nature

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

disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,22,86,304/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee submitted that the reasons for reopening were communited to the assessee after 11 months of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act although the assessee

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

132 of the ITA, 1961 is given at Page 282 to 354 of the ITA, 1961.\nAll retraction affidavits are brushed aside and not considered in their\nproper perspective.\n3. 2. Premature act to cancel 12A when assessment proceedings are\nongoing\nThe learned PCIT, CC has assumed the jurisdiction for cancellation of\n12A registration of the appellant. It is submitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

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

disallow the purchases. 14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed by both sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.11

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

disallowed the benefit of the exemption for\ncommission provided to doctors engaged in private practice for referring\ntheir patients to the assessee's diagnostic centre, holding that:\n\"It, thus, emerges that an assessee would not be entitled to\ndeduction of payments made in contravention of law. Similarly,\npayments which are opposed to public policy being in the nature

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

disallowed the benefit of the exemption for commission provided to doctors engaged in private practice for referring their patients to the assessee's diagnostic centre, holding that:\n\"It, thus, emerges that an assessee would not be entitled to deduction of payments made in contravention of law. Similarly, payments which are opposed to public policy being in the nature

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

disallow the purchases.\n14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the\norders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed by both\nsides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides.\nWe find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of\nRs.11

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

132(4), as to the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, the Assessing Officer is not justified in imposing the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Ritu Singal (supra) considering the above two decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

132(4), as to the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, the Assessing Officer is not justified in imposing the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Ritu Singal (supra) considering the above two decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

132(4), as to the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, the Assessing Officer is not justified in imposing the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Ritu Singal (supra) considering the above two decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

4) are \"may be presumed\". The presumption\nunder sub-section (4A) therefore, is a rebuttable presumption. The finding\nrecorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the presumption\nunder sub-section (4A) is a irrebuttable presumption in so far as it relates\nto the passing of an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and\nrebuttable presumption

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

132 of the Act, is not for the benefit of the assessee. 11. Further, invoking the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer discussed the application of the said explanation which refers to the non-allowability of certain expenditure, when used for the purpose of offences prohibited by law. Further, invoking the provisions of section

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

132 of the Act, is not for the benefit of the assessee. 11. Further, invoking the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer discussed the application of the said explanation which refers to the non-allowability of certain expenditure, when used for the purpose of offences prohibited by law. Further, invoking the provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

132 of the Act, is not for the benefit of the assessee. 11. Further, invoking the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer discussed the application of the said explanation which refers to the non-allowability of certain expenditure, when used for the purpose of offences prohibited by law. Further, invoking the provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

132 of the Act, is not for the benefit of the assessee. 11. Further, invoking the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer discussed the application of the said explanation which refers to the non-allowability of certain expenditure, when used for the purpose of offences prohibited by law. Further, invoking the provisions of section

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

132 of the Act, is not for the benefit of the assessee. 11. Further, invoking the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer discussed the application of the said explanation which refers to the non-allowability of certain expenditure, when used for the purpose of offences prohibited by law. Further, invoking the provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

132 of the Act, is not for the benefit of the assessee. 11. Further, invoking the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer discussed the application of the said explanation which refers to the non-allowability of certain expenditure, when used for the purpose of offences prohibited by law. Further, invoking the provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

132 of the Act, is not for the benefit of the assessee. 11. Further, invoking the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer discussed the application of the said explanation which refers to the non-allowability of certain expenditure, when used for the purpose of offences prohibited by law. Further, invoking the provisions of section