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 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. 9. The issue which arises is whether in cases picked up for limited scrutiny, can any other issue be decided without taking necessary permission from the concerned Commissioner? In this regard, first we will make reference to CBDT, which vide Instruction No.5/2016, dated 14.07.2016 had clearly pointed out that in the cases

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. iii. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of Rs.14,97,00,237

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961. iii. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of Rs.14,97,00,237

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. POONAM DNYANESHWAR MAHAJAN,, NASHIK

In the result, the Cross Object filed by the assessee in C

237/- 3. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that the assessed income resulted @ 40% of the turnover which is impossible and had proceeded to estimate the income @ 10% of the turnover by rejecting the book results. 3 C.O. No.41/PUN/2022 4. Being aggrieved by the decision

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

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

Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should clearly be stamped with “AIR case.” This should be immediately brought to the notice of all the officers working in your region. Yours faithfully, i- (Ajay Goyal) Director (ITA.II)” 7. Admittedly, the necessary approval had not been taken by the AO while widening the scope of inquiry. Though

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

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

Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should clearly be stamped with “AIR case.” This should be immediately brought to the notice of all the officers working in your region. Yours faithfully, i- (Ajay Goyal) Director (ITA.II)” 7. Admittedly, the necessary approval had not been taken by the AO while widening the scope of inquiry. Though

NILESH VASANT SHENDE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.670/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Nilesh Vasant Shende, Mzsk & Associates Chartered Accountants, Level-3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune-411 001. Pan : Anxps3098L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

disallowance and denial of deduction u/s.54 of the Act in the present case, AO did not obtain any Administrative approval from the concerned CIT. The notices do not indicate the same. This fact is made out in the AO‟s letter dated 11-04-2018 addressed to the Administrative CIT. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment

LOKESH SADASHIV SHETTY,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

SHIRRAM DUDH VYAVASAYIK SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

SHRIRAM SAHAKAI DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, PANDHARPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

HANUMAN SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LIMITED,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

SHRI.DHAWAL SINGH MOHITE PATIL SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

NAZARE VIKAS KARYAKARI SEVA SHAKARI SOCIETY LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

SHRIDATTA DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

BHAGWANDADA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

RAJE DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, PANDHARPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

SHETKARI SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LIMITED,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, PANDHARPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

237 ITR 518 (Bom.) was not issued in connection with the jurisdiction of the AO in matters relating to extension of areas of scrutiny to the ones than the authorised ones by the Board. In this connection, we perused the CBDT Instruction No.7/2014, dated 26-09-2014 and find it relevant to extract the relevant lines. The same reads

SURESH JUGRAJ MUTHA,,DHULE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.05/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

disallowance and denial of deduction u/s.54 of the Act in the present case, AO did not obtain any Administrative approval from the concerned CIT. The notices do not indicate the same. This fact is made out in the AO’s letter dated 11-04-2018 addressed to the Administrative CIT. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment