DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

reassessment, should the law otherwise permit it, and if the circumstances justify it. We have quashed the impugned notices only because they were issued to a non- existing company or entity despite the respondents' knowledge of its non-existence. All contentions in this regard are left open because we have not addressed them in this order." 30. The various other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

reassessment, should the law otherwise permit it, and if the circumstances justify it. We have quashed the impugned notices only because they were issued to a non- existing company or entity despite the respondents' knowledge of its non-existence. All contentions in this regard are left open because we have not addressed them in this order." 30. The various other

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D. the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

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)

reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus, the law is clear that for an unabated assessment year, completed assessment attains finality which cannot be disturbed except on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action

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)

reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus, the law is clear that for an unabated assessment year, completed assessment attains finality which cannot be disturbed except on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action

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)

reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus, the law is clear that for an unabated assessment year, completed assessment attains finality which cannot be disturbed except on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iv. Further a hand written note was also found and seized Bundle of the Panchanama in the case of Shri Yuvaraj Sitaram Dhamale, Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd., wherein entries of cash receipts were made. From the hand written note it is clear that the appellant has paid Rs.25,00,000/- in cash for the purchase of Flat during

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iv. Further a hand written note was also found and seized Bundle of the Panchanama in the case of Shri Yuvaraj Sitaram Dhamale, Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd., wherein entries of cash receipts were made. From the hand written note it is clear that the appellant has paid Rs.25,00,000/- in cash for the purchase of Flat during

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iv. Further a hand written note was also found and seized Bundle of the Panchanama in the case of Shri Yuvaraj Sitaram Dhamale, Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd., wherein entries of cash receipts were made. From the hand written note it is clear that the appellant has paid Rs.25,00,000/- in cash for the purchase of Flat during

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iv. Further a hand written note was also found and seized Bundle of the Panchanama in the case of Shri Yuvaraj Sitaram Dhamale, Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd., wherein entries of cash receipts were made. From the hand written note it is clear that the appellant has paid Rs.25,00,000/- in cash for the purchase of Flat during

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iv. Further a hand written note was also found and seized Bundle of the Panchanama in the case of Shri Yuvaraj Sitaram Dhamale, Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd., wherein entries of cash receipts were made. From the hand written note it is clear that the appellant has paid Rs.25,00,000/- in cash for the purchase of Flat during

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iv. Further a hand written note was also found and seized Bundle of the Panchanama in the case of Shri Yuvaraj Sitaram Dhamale, Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd., wherein entries of cash receipts were made. From the hand written note it is clear that the appellant has paid Rs.25,00,000/- in cash for the purchase of Flat during

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

iv)The term „consideration‟ which has been used in section 35AB of the Act is understood to have a wider meaning than „expenditure‟. (v) The term „consideration‟ includes payment in kind. (vi)Without prejudice to the above, even the term „expenditure‟ would include payments in kind. (vii) Meaning of the term „lump sum‟ as used in section 35AB also includes

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

iv) Misc. expenses written off 5,037,402 v) Leave Equalization reserve 2,02,71,804 vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

iv) Misc. expenses written off 5,037,402 v) Leave Equalization reserve 2,02,71,804 vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iv. Further a hand written note was also found and seized Bundle of the Panchanama in the case of Shri Yuvaraj Sitaram Dhamale, Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd., wherein entries of cash receipts were made. From the hand written note it is clear that the appellant has paid Rs.25,00,000/- in cash for the purchase of Flat during

MOTIWALA AUTO PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD1(1), AURANABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

iv) professional/technical fee of Rs.3,52,696/; (v)\ninterest from Hyundai Motor India of Rs.82,500/-, (vi) sale/purchase of Motor\nVehicle of Rs.6,95,134/-, (vii) turnover from business of Rs.1,29,49,068/- and\n(viii) cash deposits of Rs.1,08,09,180/-, aggregating to Rs.3,06,55,158/.\nTherefore based on the above information, case of the assessee

SAGAR BABANRAO AWATADE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.79/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allow ance under this Act has been computed. (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or 4 ITA.No.79/PUN/2024 Sagar Babanrao Awatade document received from the prescribed Income

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

iv)/3(v) of the CBDT Circular No …. dated (strike off those which are not applicable) and with the approval of the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income Tax vide number ….dated …. 4. Any communication which is not in conformity with Para-2 and Para-3 above, shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued