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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

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

147 of the Act had not made the addition of Rs.7,62,67,463/- which was returned back to these shell companies. Since the 8 ITA No.1178/PUN/2023 ITA No.2017/PUN/2024 assessee in his statement recorded /s 132(4) of the Act at the time of search u/s 132 had admitted to the fact that he had taken accommodation entries from

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

Section 69C of ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs.1,52,62,200 and Rs.9,15,732 respectively thereby confirming the assessed income to the tune of Rs.3,41,20,562/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,79,42,630/- 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings when admittedly conditions specified u/s 147

MRS NEHA VITTHAL DIMBLE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment proceedings\nwhich constrained the Ld. AO to complete the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B\nof the Act on 19.02.2024 at an assessed income of Rs.83,31,620/- by making\naddition of - (i) Rs.66,65,000/- in respect of cash deposits in bank treating the\nsame as unexplained money under section 69A; (ii) Rs.14,08,073/- in respect\nof purchase

ASHISH VILAS PUNDLIK,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5 (2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

section 151 of the ITA, 1961, is not discerning from: a) notice u/s 148 of the ITA, 1961; b) reasons record by the learned AO and c) assessment order and assessment records As such, appellant contends that, order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ITA, 1961 is bad in law. 2. Appellant contends that the reassessment proceedings initiated

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 153A was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,00,324/-. Thereafter, assessment under section u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A wat completed on 22.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.16,79,227/-. The office has received information from the office of the DDIT (Inv), Unit

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

69C of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the assessee has wrongly claimed an additional benefit of deduction of Rs 68,32,775/- while calculating the capital gain arising as a result of the sale of the land. In view of the above discussions, this additional benefit claimed by the assessee is hereby disallowed and is added