JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

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

69B as unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D

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

69B as unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D

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

69B as unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D

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

69B as unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D

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

69B as unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

69B of the Act. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC who sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal also sustained the addition. The Assessing Officer in the meantime initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Rejecting the explanation given

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Add: Rs 68,32,775/-) 6. After careful perusal of the submissions provided by the assessee, the income of the assessee is being computed as below: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1 Income as per return

CYZA CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 69B is squarely applicable. Accordingly, claim of set off of brought forward business loss (excluding depreciation loss) to the tune of Rs.1024521/- was disallowed and added back in the income of assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities as a builder. The same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities as a builder. The same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities as a builder. The same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities as a builder. The same

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities as a builder. The same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities as a builder. The same