RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the requirement of section 54E of the Act. 7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons on which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section 54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee. The question of denying any such claim

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the requirement of section 54E of the Act. 7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons on which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section 54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee. The question of denying any such claim

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the\nrequirement of section 54E of the Act.\n7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons\non which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section\n54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by\nthe assessee. The question of denying any such claim

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the\nrequirement of section 54E of the Act.\n7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons\non which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section\n54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by\nthe assessee. The question of denying any such claim

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the\nrequirement of section 54E of the Act.\n7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons\non which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section\n54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by\nthe assessee. The question of denying any such claim

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed\nby the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by\nrespondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries\nwere taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed\nby the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by\nrespondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries\nwere taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

Disallowance on account alleged cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). even though, as was substantiated in the submission to the Ld. PCIT, there isneither any violation of S.40A (3) nor the excess income declared during surveyhas remained to be disclosed, which fact was duly examined by the AO duringthe assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The appellant therefore prays

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of claim of agriculture income of Rs 5,52,310/- and addition u/s 68 of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash credit is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. It further be held that no addition is warranted in the case of the Appellant. The addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. There is a delay of 565 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit 2 explaining the reasons for such delay which is partly due to the then prevailing Covid

PREM GRAIN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,JALGOAN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Prem Grain Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 1, Jalgaon E 2/1, Midc Area, Ahjantha Vs. Road, Jalgaon – 425003 Pan: Aadcp9598E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Anchaliya Department By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Following Issue: “Whether Unsecured Loans Are Genuine & From Disclosed Sources.”

section 68 of the Act for the relevant assessment year. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the disallowance

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

68,26,650/-.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal(s) before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging both the orders dated 08.03.2023 and 03.07.2023 passed under section 143(3) and section 154 of the Act respectively. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

68,26,650/-.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal(s) before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging both the orders dated 08.03.2023 and 03.07.2023 passed under section 143(3) and section 154 of the Act respectively. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

section 68. 3. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in not examining and giving any finding on various latest decision of Supreme Court and jurisdictional Bombay High Court relied on which are on similar issues & facts and wherein additions on account of long term capital gain on sale of alleged penny stock are deleted and relied on certain decisions which