ST LAWRENCE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, AURANGABAD,AURANGABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Xavier‘S Education Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), R-7/1, Town Centre, Nagpur Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Lawrence Educational Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Nagpur Salta Circle, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent

133A of the Act on 27-02- 2019. During the course of survey, certain vouchers were found bearing only signature of the recipients but the details of recipients, amount and signature of Trustee/Accountant and details of expenses were not mentioned. These vouchers pertained to Bonus, Perquisites and Allowances etc. Statement of Ms. Flavia Alburquerque, a trustee of both the trusts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOMNATH VAIJANATH SAKRE,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

disallowed in the hands of assessee. The relevant findings vide para 49 are as under:- "49. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In the facts relating to the issue, during the course of search on one Shri Sandeep Sitani, CA carried out on 22.06.2008 and survey under section 133A

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPNY LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

disallowed in the hands of assessee. The relevant findings vide para 49 are as under:- "49. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In the facts relating to the issue, during the course of search on one Shri Sandeep Sitani, CA carried out on 22.06.2008 and survey under section 133A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, SATARA

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

133A of the Act was conducted on the premises of assessee on 11.03.2011, under which certain documents were impounded and statement of the Director of the company was also recorded. Following the Survey, assessment for four assessment years i.e. 2004-05 to 2007-08 were reopened on the issue of excessive and unreasonable payments made to sister concern under section

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

133A of the Act was conducted on the premises of assessee on 11.03.2011, under which certain documents were impounded and statement of the Director of the company was also recorded. Following the Survey, assessment for four assessment years i.e. 2004-05 to 2007-08 were reopened on the issue of excessive and unreasonable payments made to sister concern under section

RADHE RADHE LABOUR CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1589/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of assessee on 30.01.2008. During the course of Survey, the assessee made declaration of additional income of Rs.45,93,467/- which was offered as additional income over and above the income to be returned for the year under consideration. The assessee claims that it had disclosed the said additional

DCIT,JALGAON vs. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION P.LTD, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 131, 132, 133A etc., in the 2 months time given by the Tribunal at the time of calling the remand report on 07-06-2018. This inaction of the AO is unsustainable legally and it constitutes unacceptable passiveness of AO. Requesting the Tribunal for further remanding the entire issue to the file of AO without having credible reasons amounts

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, JALGAON vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 131, 132, 133A etc., in the 2 months time given by the Tribunal at the time of calling the remand report on 07-06-2018. This inaction of the AO is unsustainable legally and it constitutes unacceptable passiveness of AO. Requesting the Tribunal for further remanding the entire issue to the file of AO without having credible reasons amounts

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.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” (Refer Para 12 on Page No. 228 – 229 of Paperbook for Case Laws) 31. Reliance is next placed upon a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sheth

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.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” (Refer Para 12 on Page No. 228 – 229 of Paperbook for Case Laws) 31. Reliance is next placed upon a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sheth

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.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” (Refer Para 12 on Page No. 228 – 229 of Paperbook for Case Laws) 31. Reliance is next placed upon a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sheth

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.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” (Refer Para 12 on Page No. 228 – 229 of Paperbook for Case Laws) 31. Reliance is next placed upon a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sheth

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.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” (Refer Para 12 on Page No. 228 – 229 of Paperbook for Case Laws) 31. Reliance is next placed upon a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sheth

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.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” (Refer Para 12 on Page No. 228 – 229 of Paperbook for Case Laws) 31. Reliance is next placed upon a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sheth

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.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” (Refer Para 12 on Page No. 228 – 229 of Paperbook for Case Laws) 31. Reliance is next placed upon a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sheth

CYZA CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

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

section 69B is squarely applicable. Accordingly, claim of set off of brought forward business loss (excluding depreciation loss) to the tune of Rs.1024521/- was disallowed and added back in the income of assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of income as the additional income was offered after detection of the same during search

NITIN BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), PUNE

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

section 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of assessee on 30.01.2008. During the course of Survey, the assessee made declaration of additional income of Rs.45,93,467/- which was offered as additional income over and above the income to be returned for the year under consideration. The assessee claims that it had disclosed the said additional

SURENDRA BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

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

section 133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of assessee on 30.01.2008. During the course of Survey, the assessee made declaration of additional income of Rs.45,93,467/- which was offered as additional income over and above the income to be returned for the year under consideration. The assessee claims that it had disclosed the said additional