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

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 excel

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

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 excel

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

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 excel

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

292C by the Finance\nAct 2007 w..e.f. 01.10.1975. Hence the contention of the assessee is\nnot found acceptable and is rejected. It is not a case of conjectures\nand surmises of AO. There is adequate material or details about the\nnature and ownership of the documents. Hence in the light of Section\n292C and the nature of the transaction

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

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

292C by the Finance\nAct 2007 w..e.f. 01.10.1975. Hence the contention of the assessee is\nnot found acceptable and is rejected. It is not a case of conjectures\nand surmises of AO. There is adequate material or details about the\nnature and ownership of the documents. Hence in the light of Section\n292C and the nature of the transaction

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

292C by the Finance\nAct 2007 w..e.f. 01.10.1975. Hence the contention of the assessee is\nnot found acceptable and is rejected. It is not a case of conjectures\nand surmises of AO. There is adequate material or details about the\nnature and ownership of the documents. Hence in the light of Section\n292C and the nature of the transaction

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

292C by the Finance\nAct 2007 w..e.f. 01.10.1975. Hence the contention of the assessee is\nnot found acceptable and is rejected. It is not a case of conjectures\nand surmises of AO. There is adequate material or details about the\nnature and ownership of the documents. Hence in the light of Section\n292C and the nature of the transaction

SHREE BALAJI REALTY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 is partly allowed

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

292C was clearly applicable" (ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi): The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon Assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 5.5 In view of discussion above

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

292C was clearly applicable" (ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi): The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation.” 9. Relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LL,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

292C was clearly applicable\"\n(ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi):\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised\nunder section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut\nthat presumption by offering a plausible explanation.\"\n9.\nRelying on various decisions, the Assessing

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

292C was clearly applicable\"\n(ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi):\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised\nunder section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon Assessee to rebut\nthat presumption by offering a plausible explanation.\n5.5 In view of discussion above

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

292C was clearly applicable\"\n(ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi):\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised\nunder section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut\nthat presumption by offering a plausible explanation.\"\n9.\nRelying on various decisions, the Assessing

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, appeals for

292C was clearly applicable\"\n(ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi):\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised\nunder section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon Assessee to rebut\nthat presumption by offering a plausible explanation.\n5.5 In view of discussion above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. ABHAYRAJ FATTEHRAJ CHORDIYA, C/O LAXMI OIL MIL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

house property, income from business and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.17,01,810. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. C & M Farming Ltd. (C&M Group cases

GANRAJ HOMES LLP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Properties vs. ACIT vide ITA No.741/PN/2012 iii) Fort Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 84 (Kolkata-Trib.) iv) ACIT vs. M/s. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2986/Mum/2011 v) DCIT vs. Royal Marwar Tobacco Product (P.) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 53 (Ahmedabad) (URO) vi) D.N. Kamani (HUF) vs. DCIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 (PAT.) (TM) vii) Samrat Beer

GANRAJ HOMES LLP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Properties vs. ACIT vide ITA No.741/PN/2012 iii) Fort Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 84 (Kolkata-Trib.) iv) ACIT vs. M/s. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2986/Mum/2011 v) DCIT vs. Royal Marwar Tobacco Product (P.) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 53 (Ahmedabad) (URO) vi) D.N. Kamani (HUF) vs. DCIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 (PAT.) (TM) vii) Samrat Beer

GANRAJ HOMES LLP ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Properties vs. ACIT vide ITA No.741/PN/2012 iii) Fort Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 84 (Kolkata-Trib.) iv) ACIT vs. M/s. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2986/Mum/2011 v) DCIT vs. Royal Marwar Tobacco Product (P.) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 53 (Ahmedabad) (URO) vi) D.N. Kamani (HUF) vs. DCIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 (PAT.) (TM) vii) Samrat Beer

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

292C of the Act. B. As regards, the addition made on account on-money purchase consideration and receipt of on-money consideration, he submits that the notings found in the Diary of 2009 clearly indicates the transaction of unaccounted receipts as well as payments at the time of purchase of property. Therefore, he submits that the orders of the lower