RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

68 of the ITA, 1961. As against, the final taxation is u/s 115BBC. Per se, no approval is sought for taxation u/s 148 for the said Section 115BBC. As an effect, it transpires that, the entire taxation made by learned AO u/s 115BBC is without sanction of higher authorities. Appellant relies on the following decisions in this regard. 16. Contention

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

68 of the ITA, 1961. As against, the final taxation is u/s 115BBC. Per se, no approval is sought for taxation u/s 148 for the said Section 115BBC. As an effect, it transpires that, the entire taxation made by learned AO u/s 115BBC is without sanction of higher authorities. Appellant relies on the following decisions in this regard. 16. Contention

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

natural justice is liable to be deleted. Ground No. 4 stands allowed in favour of appellant. 9. Even on merit also, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowed the claim of deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under: Addition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

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

natural justice is liable to be deleted. Ground No. 4 stands allowed in favour of appellant. 9. Even on merit also, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowed the claim of deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under: Addition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

68 of the ITA, 1961. As against, the final\ntaxation is u/s 115BBC. Per se, no approval is sought for taxation\nu/s 148 for the said Section 115BBC. As an effect, it transpires that,\nthe entire taxation made by learned AO_u/s_115BBC is without\nsanction of higher authorities. Appellant relies on the following\ndecisions in this regard.\n16. Contention

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

68 of the ITA, 1961. As against, the final\ntaxation is u/s 115BBC. Per se, no approval is sought for taxation\nu/s 148 for the said Section 115BBC. As an effect, it transpires that,\nthe entire taxation made by learned AO_u/s_115BBC is without\nsanction of higher authorities. Appellant relies on the following\ndecisions in this regard.\n16. Contention

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

68 of the ITA, 1961. As against, the final\ntaxation is u/s 115BBC. Per se, no approval is sought for taxation\nu/s 148 for the said Section 115BBC. As an effect, it transpires that,\nthe entire taxation made by learned AO_u/s_115BBC is without\nsanction of higher authorities. Appellant relies on the following\ndecisions in this regard.\n16. Contention

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

natural justice is liable to be deleted. Ground No. 4 stands allowed in favour of appellant. 9. Even on merit also, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowed the claim of deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under: Addition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of this bundle related to MCX trading and various loans and advances taken and given in cash. During the course of search, notings on said pages were confronted to Shri Ashok B Jain to explain the method of notings along with contents. In the notings on back side of page 55, Shri Ashok B Jain stated that Shri Ganesh

SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of this bundle related to MCX trading and various loans and advances taken and given in cash. During the course of search, notings on said pages were confronted to Shri Ashok B Jain to explain the method of notings along with contents. In the notings on back side of page 55, Shri Ashok B Jain stated that Shri Ganesh

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

68 as unexplained cash credit to section 69A as unexplained money of the assessee, then he must also give cogent and valid reasons and resort to the applicable provisions within the Act 15 ITA 1850 of 2019 Kalpesh R. Gardharia A.Y. 2010-11 itself. The ld. CIT(A) while re-adjudicating the issue shall comply with the principles of natural

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

natural justice are satisfied. Cross-examination in sense is not the technical cross-examination in a Court olaw in the witness- box." Therefore, in view of above this office is of the opinion tht there is no need as well time for cross examination. Further, the party of which the cross examination has been asked for has been duly verified

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014