SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

section 17(3) of\nthe Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC and direct\nthe Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the\nassessee are accordingly allowed.\"\n9.\nRespectfully following the decision in the case of Ashok\nRaghunathrao Kulkarni (supra) and in the absence of any contrary\nmaterial brought on record

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

17. The Revenue in the appeal relating to assessment year 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the set off of income disclosed during search action under head income from other sources against statutory disallowances u/s.40A(3

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRI VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

17. The Revenue in the appeal relating to assessment year 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the set off of income disclosed during search action under head income from other sources against statutory disallowances u/s.40A(3

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

17. The Revenue in the appeal relating to assessment year 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the set off of income disclosed during search action under head income from other sources against statutory disallowances u/s.40A(3

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

17. The Revenue in the appeal relating to assessment year 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the set off of income disclosed during search action under head income from other sources against statutory disallowances u/s.40A(3

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRI VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

17. The Revenue in the appeal relating to assessment year 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the set off of income disclosed during search action under head income from other sources against statutory disallowances u/s.40A(3

SURESH CHUNNILAL SHARMA,,PARBHANI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - PARBHANI,, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1883/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 40A(3) without bringing the case in any of the specific clauses of Rule 6DD. 15. On an overview of the view canvassed by various Hon’ble High Courts on the point - some deleting the disallowance on the basis of the genuineness of the transactions while others sustaining the disallowance - what matters for the Tribunal is to follow

PARNA VASUDEVAIAH,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed the relief under section 89 and held that the amount/ compensation received by the assessee in full and final settlement on voluntary retirement is taxable as profits in lieu of salary under the provisions of section 17(3

PARVEZ MUKHTAR KHAN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

17(2) & Rule 3 sub-clause (10) Explanation ()(). 3 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred by not taking a balanced view by differing on the nature of the payments received from the employer, he erred in not accepting the amounts of Rs. 59,72,750/- as Capital Receipts in the same spirit as he has accepted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

disallowed as non business expenditure. This was the reason recorded against escapement of assessment within meaning of clause (b) of section 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 8. The issue which arises is whether the exercise of jurisdiction by Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act in such facts is valid or not. The basis for recording

ASHOK RAGHUNATHRAO KULKARNI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

section 17(3) of the I T Act and is taxable on due basis or receipt basis, whichever is earlier. 4.3.4 The case laws referred by the appellant are not relevant in the case of the appellant. In the present case, as per the scheme, it is not a voluntary retirement in normal course but a scheme to retire voluntary

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed the same by holding as under- "It would be pertinent to mention here that the above assessed loss of Rs.73,24,3051- is inclusive of Depreciation loss of Rs. 12,69,0741-. Further, under the circumstances that the return of income was not filed within the stipulated time limit as detailed in section 139(1) of the Act, only

UTTAMSING R. PAWAR,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 40A(3) and rule 6DD that they are intended to regulate business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black money for business transactions. ( Mudiam Oil Company v. ITO [1973] 92 ITR 519 (AP)). If the payment is made by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or crossed bank draft

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

disallowance was made under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 16,387/-. ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 36 29. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 30. The Ld. AR first referred to brief facts of the case and pointed out that the assessee was engaged in online pharmacy i.e. e-pharmacy business, wherein the stock

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

disallowance was made under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 16,387/-. ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 36 29. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 30. The Ld. AR first referred to brief facts of the case and pointed out that the assessee was engaged in online pharmacy i.e. e-pharmacy business, wherein the stock

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

disallowance was made under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 16,387/-. ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 36 29. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 30. The Ld. AR first referred to brief facts of the case and pointed out that the assessee was engaged in online pharmacy i.e. e-pharmacy business, wherein the stock

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

disallowance was made under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 16,387/-. ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 36 29. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 30. The Ld. AR first referred to brief facts of the case and pointed out that the assessee was engaged in online pharmacy i.e. e-pharmacy business, wherein the stock

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

disallowance was made under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 16,387/-. ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 36 29. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 30. The Ld. AR first referred to brief facts of the case and pointed out that the assessee was engaged in online pharmacy i.e. e-pharmacy business, wherein the stock