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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3. 10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that

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

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said

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

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said

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

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), PUNE, INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED, MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3. 10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3. 10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that

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.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

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

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

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

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

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

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

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

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption