ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 4, Pune …. Vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bhageerath, 402, Senapati Bapat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411016 Pan: Aabcp1209Q

68,205/- without appreciating the fact the assessee itself in the comparable furnished in its transfer pricing report has shown 'Ordinary profit' to be of 13.84% (as observed by the AO in the assessment order) as against the net profit margin of 26.40% shown by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

68,952/- in its return of income and not Rs. 10,24,180/-. ITA No.380/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Pune (A) 5.9 Further assessee itself has applied provisions of old Rule 8D while calculating the suo moto disallowance. This indicates that application of Sec 14A r.w Rule 8D is acceptable

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

10. Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.” 4. Assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal : “11. Without prejudice to other Grounds of appeal, Appellant contends that income from alleged "Anonymous Donations", taxable u/s 115BBC, can't exceed "Total Income" of the Appellant, considering the mechanism emerging from section 115BBC read

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

10. Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.” 4. Assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal : “11. Without prejudice to other Grounds of appeal, Appellant contends that income from alleged "Anonymous Donations", taxable u/s 115BBC, can't exceed "Total Income" of the Appellant, considering the mechanism emerging from section 115BBC read

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

10. Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.” 4. Assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal : “11. Without prejudice to other Grounds of appeal, Appellant contends that income from alleged "Anonymous Donations", taxable u/s 115BBC, can't exceed "Total Income" of the Appellant, considering the mechanism emerging from section 115BBC read

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

10(38) of the Income Tax Act by holding as non genuine and unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under:\n\nAddition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

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

10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under:\n\nAddition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

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

10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under:\n\nAddition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 10(38) conferring exemption to the gains arising on the sale or transfer of shares were fulfilled. The observations of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT are reproduced as under: "4. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. As shall be evident from the foregoing narration of events, the primary7 facts (and figures) of the case

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

10(38) of the Act and added the same\nunder section 68 of the Act.\n7. Further, the Assessing

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

10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing

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

10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing

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

10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing

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

10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing

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

10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing

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

10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing

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

10(38) of the Act and added the same under section 68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

38) of section 10 and treating long term capital gain as taxable and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 3. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making addition of Rs.1,00,97,902/- under section 68