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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

disallowance. Under these circumstances, if the GST for the impugned assessment year as well as the GST for the preceding assessment year which was not claimed from the undisclosed profit of assessment year 2020-21 but paid during the assessment year 2021-22 is excluded, then no undisclosed income

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite different from the penal provision under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite different from the penal provision under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite different from the penal provision under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite different from the penal provision under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite different from the penal provision under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

income on 13/02/2018, in response to the notice u/s 153A, it did not make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 9. As regards to the issue of raising fresh claim of deduction in the return filed us 153A of the Act, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbal in the case of DCIT

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

income on 13/02/2018, in response to the notice u/s 153A, it did not make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 9. As regards to the issue of raising fresh claim of deduction in the return filed us 153A of the Act, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbal in the case of DCIT

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

income on 13/02/2018, in response to the notice u/s 153A, it did not make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 9. As regards to the issue of raising fresh claim of deduction in the return filed us 153A of the Act, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbal in the case of DCIT

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

undisclosed income of the assessee and accordingly added to the total income because the assessee was in receipt of cash income which was unrecorded and the assessee failed to offer it even in the return filed after the search action.” 13. So far as the un-recorded expenditure is concerned, on being confronted by the Assessing Officer, it was replied

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

undisclosed income of the assessee and accordingly added to the total income because the assessee was in receipt of cash income which was unrecorded and the assessee failed to offer it even in the return filed after the search action.” 13. So far as the un-recorded expenditure is concerned, on being confronted by the Assessing Officer, it was replied

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

undisclosed income of the assessee and accordingly added to the total income because the assessee was in receipt of cash income which was unrecorded and the assessee failed to offer it even in the return filed after the search action.” 13. So far as the un-recorded expenditure is concerned, on being confronted by the Assessing Officer, it was replied

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

undisclosed income of the assessee and accordingly added to the total income because the assessee was in receipt of cash income which was unrecorded and the assessee failed to offer it even in the return filed after the search action.” 13. So far as the un-recorded expenditure is concerned, on being confronted by the Assessing Officer, it was replied

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

undisclosed income of the assessee and accordingly added to the total income because the assessee was in receipt of cash income which was unrecorded and the assessee failed to offer it even in the return filed after the search action.” 13. So far as the un-recorded expenditure is concerned, on being confronted by the Assessing Officer, it was replied

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

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

undisclosed\nincome of the assessee and accordingly added to the total income\nbecause the assessee was in receipt of cash income which was\nunrecorded and the assessee failed to offer it even in the return filed\nafter the search action.”\n13. So far as the un-recorded expenditure is concerned, on being\nconfronted by the Assessing Officer, it was replied

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

income of the assessee. 10. Further, the Assessing Officer based on the notings found in bundle no.1 of Diary of 2009 and the statement given by assessee u/s 132(4) had concluded that the assessee was paid on-money consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- in cash in connection with the sale of property at Paud Road. The Assessing Officer referred

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

undisclosed income by Mr. Ajit Satam and due taxes have been paid thereon, the addition of bogus expenses in the hands of assessee will tantamount to double addition and ld.CIT(A) accordingly gave relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.26.02 crore and also clubbed the disallowance

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

undisclosed\nincome of the assessee and accordingly added to the total income\nbecause the assessee was in receipt of cash income which was\nunrecorded and the assessee failed to offer it even in the return filed\nafter the search action.”\n\n13. So far as the un-recorded expenditure is concerned, on being\nconfronted by the Assessing Officer

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

undisclosed\nincome of the assessee and accordingly added to the total income\nbecause the assessee was in receipt of cash income which was\nunrecorded and the assessee failed to offer it even in the return filed\nafter the search action.”\n13. So far as the un-recorded expenditure is concerned, on being\nconfronted by the Assessing Officer, it was replied