VASANT SHIVRAM MADHAVI,PANVEL vs. ITO WARD - 5, PANVEL

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

House No.36, Targhar Post – Ulwa, Vs. Ulwa Gaon, Panvel – 410206, Maharashtra PAN: AWBPM9326N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Bhupendra Shah and Babulal Jain Department by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT Date of hearing : 23-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 22-04-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

Housing v. CIT[2013] 38 taxmann.com 203 (Mad) (iv) Pr.CIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC) (v) Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 335 (Del) (vi) Pr.CIT v. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. [2021] 435 ITR 122 (Del) (vii) Trident Estate (P) Ltd. v. ITO[2021] 127 taxmann.com 360 (Mum. – Trib.) (viii) Krish Infrastructure

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

5A of seized bundle no. 6, on this\nbasic cost written is Rs.42,75,000/- which is cash component over and\nabove of the agreement to sale value which has been taken in cash.\n(V)In sale of Flat No. A-102 of Ganga Florentina, as per page no. 03 of\nseized bundle no.7, the agreement cost has been

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

5A 6 Notings Sagar Goel Piyush No specific Ganga Florentina statement 10 3 7 Draft booking Nitin/Anita Fagmz No specific Ganga Florentina form Bokey statement 11 8 7 Final Booking Nitin/anita Fagmz No specific Ganga Florentina Form Bokye statement 12 2 4 Draft booking Ravisu Badal Paayal No specific Ganga Florentina form statement 13 6 4 Final Booking Ravisu Badal

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

In the result, appeals for

5A of seized bundle no. 6, on this basic cost\nwritten is Rs.42,75,000/- which is cash component over and above of the\nagreement to sale value which has been taken in cash.\n(V)In sale of Flat No. A-102 of Ganga Florentina, as per page no. 03 of\nseized bundle no.7, the agreement cost has been

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

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