ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act on 22.03.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,79,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.15,08,324/-. The Assessing Officer in the said order has allowed the claim of 50 ITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & Ors CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter BHARAT DEVRAJ SHEGAONKAR ACIT CEN CIR 2, NASHIK 5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee in response to the same

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

u/s 68 on account of long term capital gain being the sale of shares of M/s Yamini Investment Company Limited declared by the appellant by relying on information received from the DDIT/ADIT(Inv.), 3(3), New Delhi through Insight Portal, which are not relating to the appellant, as name of the appellant not mentioned and appellant is not party

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

147 assessment, and that too, on mere suspicions. It appears, learned AO's action of recording "reasons" of reassessment were totally incorrect. 4. Prayer Assessee submits that appeals preferred by I-T department are incorrect and as such deserve to be dismissed.” 28. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

147 assessment, and that too, on mere suspicions. It appears, learned AO's action of recording "reasons" of reassessment were totally incorrect. 4. Prayer Assessee submits that appeals preferred by I-T department are incorrect and as such deserve to be dismissed.” 28. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

147 assessment, and that too, on mere suspicions. It appears, learned AO's action of recording "reasons" of reassessment were totally incorrect. 4. Prayer Assessee submits that appeals preferred by I-T department are incorrect and as such deserve to be dismissed.” 28. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

147 assessment, and that too, on mere suspicions. It appears, learned AO's action of recording "reasons" of reassessment were totally incorrect. 4. Prayer Assessee submits that appeals preferred by I-T department are incorrect and as such deserve to be dismissed.” 28. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

147 assessment, and that too, on mere suspicions. It appears, learned AO's action of recording "reasons" of reassessment were totally incorrect. 4. Prayer Assessee submits that appeals preferred by I-T department are incorrect and as such deserve to be dismissed.” 28. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

147 assessment, and that too, on mere suspicions. It appears, learned AO's action of recording "reasons" of reassessment were totally incorrect. 4. Prayer Assessee submits that appeals preferred by I-T department are incorrect and as such deserve to be dismissed.” 28. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

147 assessment, and that too, on mere suspicions. It appears, learned AO's action of recording "reasons" of reassessment were totally incorrect. 4. Prayer Assessee submits that appeals preferred by I-T department are incorrect and as such deserve to be dismissed.” 28. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee u/s 10(38) of the Act as bogus. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.9,15,732/- u/s 69C of the Act being the commission paid in cash for arranging such accommodation entries which has not been recorded in the books of account. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income

ITO WARD 9(4),, PUNE vs. SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

147 of the Act vide order dt.23.12.2011 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,35,54,420/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.03.09.2013 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-II/ACIT Cir-4/299/2011- 12) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee has raised

SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

147 of the Act vide order dt.23.12.2011 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,35,54,420/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.03.09.2013 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-II/ACIT Cir-4/299/2011- 12) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee has raised

GANPAT MUKUNDRAO MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

147 of the Act vide order dt.23.12.2011 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,35,54,420/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.03.09.2013 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-II/ACIT Cir-4/299/2011- 12) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee has raised

BHANUDAS DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

DNYANESHWAR DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

VITTHAL DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

SANDIP BHANUDAS TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

RAMDAS BHANUDASTUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity