DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

House\n1,99,46,143\n35,90,308\n2,35,36,451\nTotal\n17,49,83,488\n3,14,97,032\n20,64,80,520\n19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order,\nhas made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the\nAssessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

House 1,99,46,143 35,90,308 2,35,36,451 Total 17,49,83,488 3,14,97,032 20,64,80,520 19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, has made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed

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

house property We would also like to mention that assessee had completely changed his stand in respect of finance charges in this additional ground. One of the assessee's stands definitely have no legs to stand. Assessee's claim that the money was borrowed for acquiring property which is fetching rent needs proper verification and investigation

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI VINAY BADERA,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Vinay Badera Acit, Circle 3, Pune 303, Rohan Tapovan, Sb Road, Vs. Gokhale Nagar, Pune – 411016 Pan: Abjpb1324J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-03-2025 O R D E R

section 57(iii) of the Act, any other expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, is allowed as deduction against income shown as ‘Income from other sources’. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish the details of deductions claimed u/s 57 along

RAJESH BALRAM SINGH ,PUNE vs. ACIT , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

133(6) of the Act remained un-complied with. Due to non- compliance of notices issued by the Ld. AO and in the absence of any details of date and cost of acquisition or other related documents, the Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act vide his order dated 21.03.2024 thereby

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE ,, ICHALKRANJI vs. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

house property and income from other sources whereas as per Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the said deduction is envisaged out of profit and gains from the eligible business only. 4. For illustrating the issue in question and related facts therein, we would take up ITA No.2738/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as lead case for adjudication. A.Y.2010-11