DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

133A of the Act was carried out at the business\npremises of M/s. Siasons Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. (STIPL) by the DDIT (Inv),\nUnit 5(1), Mumbai on 21.01.2021. During the course of survey it was found that\nSTIPL is indulged in receiving accommodation entries in the form of bogus\npurchases and bogus sales which were admitted by Shri

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEEPAK BABURAO VISPUTE, KOPARGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act amounting to Rs.4,42,86,847 as unexplained investment to be taxed by applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 8. The Assessing Officer similarly made addition of Rs.2,83,490/- out of sales promotion expenses being not supported by satisfactory evidences and therefore, 5 not genuine. He further made 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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

ANAND CONSTRUWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK -1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.955/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Anand Construwell Private Vs. Pcit-1, Nashik. Limited, Ramchandra Apartments, Makhmalabad Road, Panchvati, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aafca7736H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit-1, Nashik [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S. 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nashik May Please Be Quashed. 2. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Is Not Justified In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 By Holding That Provisions Of Section 69C Are Applicable In The Present Case As The Assessee Was Not Able To Explain The Sources Of Expenditure

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted, where the assessee has declared that the expenditure of Rs.2,28,29,555/- recorded in Profit and Loss account was not incurred for the purpose of business. The same was duly offered to income by the assessee. 4. The assessment order u/s 143(3) has passed by the AO on 30/09/2021

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

133A of the Act on 14.09.2016 in his reply to question Nos.11 and\n13 has stated the reasons for non disclosure of such conversion of capital asset to\nstock in trade which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs.\nFurther, during the course of assessment proceedings, on being asked by the\nAssessing Officer as to whether the fact

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. JM Financial Asset Management Limited (“JM Financial”) situated at 7th & 8th Floor, Appa Saheb Marathe Marg, Cynergy, 3 IT(SS)A Nos.23 to 25/PUN/2024 Prabhadevi, Mumbai, during which it was found that JM Balanced Fund – Dividend Option Regular scheme by JM Financial had manipulated accounting methodology

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SYDLER REMEDIES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1274/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sydler Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. M-190, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad- 431002. Pan : Aaics3879E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Deleting The Addition Made As Per Provisions Of Section 698 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The 1.T. Act On Declaration Made Of Rs. 5,88,00,000/- On Account Of Excess Stock Found During Survey For Which Assessee Failed To Offer Any Satisfactory Explanation During The Survey As Well As Assessment Proceedings.

133A of the IT Act was conducted on 26.10.2017 at the business premises of the assessee at various locations situated in Aurangabad and Pune and books of accounts were impounded during the course of survey actions. The assessee company e-filed its return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,09,13,320/-. Thereafter, the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

133A of the Act was conducted by the DDIT (Inv.), Aurangabad in the cases of companies based at Kolkata from which the share premiums / application money was received in consequence to the search action u/s 132 of the Act. The survey party could serve the authorization only in the case of M/s. Brightstar Commosales Private Limited. This according

SANKALP ENGINEERING AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 10, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

survey u/s 133A of the IT Act was conducted on the business premises of the appellant on 20.01.2016. To give effect to overvaluation of stock in F.Y. 2012-13 and revaluation of stock in F.Y. 2013-14, the assessee filed revised return of income on 21.03.2016 declaring loss of Rs.24,21,03,789/- which was duly accepted

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on\n23.03.2015 during which a Commission was issued to the Registered Valuer Shri\nNitin Lele u/s 131(d) for examining the eligibility of the project ‘Teerth Towers'\nunder the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Registered Valuer\nsubmitted his report on 02.03.2015 wherein he pointed

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 23.03.2015 during which a Commission was issued to the Registered Valuer Shri Nitin Lele u/s 131(d) for examining the eligibility of the project ‘Teerth Towers’ under the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Registered Valuer submitted his report on 02.03.2015 wherein he pointed

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 23.03.2015 during which a Commission was issued to the Registered Valuer Shri Nitin Lele u/s 131(d) for examining the eligibility of the project ‘Teerth Towers’ under the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Registered Valuer submitted his report on 02.03.2015 wherein he pointed

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 23.03.2015 during which a Commission was issued to the Registered Valuer Shri Nitin Lele u/s 131(d) for examining the eligibility of the project ‘Teerth Towers’ under the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Registered Valuer submitted his report on 02.03.2015 wherein he pointed

ALIASAGAR INAYATHUSAIN BOHARI,JALGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the appellant for A

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1160/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Aliasagar Inayathusain Bohari, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Dhule. M/S. Saifee Machinery, Shop No.6, Opp. Panchayat Samiti Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon- 425405. Pan : Abapb5558K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.70,00,000 When The Impounded Material Is Covered In The Finalized Books Of Accounts Which Were Duly Audited Nothing

u/s 133A and Rs.2,20,869/- towards net profit of bore well business activity being 20% of Rs.11,04,345/-. 5. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called