SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

68 of\nthe Act and the long term capital gains declared by the assessee cannot be\ndoubted with. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct\nthe AO to delete the impugned additions made by him.”\nWe find SEBI vide order dated 05.10.2017 has revoked the directions issued\nearlier in respect of 104 parties

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

Section 68, an Income-tax Officer was not precluded from making an inquiry about true nature and source of sum found credited in books of assessee, even if same was credited as receipt of share application money. In the case of Nisha Sharma146 taxmann.com 209 (Jabalpur - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee's case was selected for limited

PODDAR FININ COSULTANCY PVT.LTD,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, PANVEL

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1007/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 68. A.Y. 2014-15, Poddar Finin Consultancy P.Ltd., 4. Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (ITA 79/2016) (Delhi) - where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that addition made u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans was justified, where initial onus of proving the creditworthiness of the lenders was not discharged by the assessee. 5. Narcsh Chandra Jain

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

section 68 by proving the identity and 5 creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. Relying on various decisions, it was argued that the addition u/s 68 is not in accordance with law. However, the CIT(A) while deleting the addition on merit, dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings by observing

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

68 (Raipur Trib.) and that of Coordinate Bench, Agra in the case of Jagdish Arora vs. ITO reported in (2021 127 taxmann.com 728 (Agra Trib.). 10. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the assessee opposed the submissions advanced by the ld. DR taking altogether a new argument which has not been raised by the AO nor by the ld.CIT

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and particular withdrawal/repayment is not available on the date of subsequent credit. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) has admitted that

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 54F of the Act for the following reasons: A. Referring to the legal expenditure of Rs.2,68,500/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said amount was paid for (i) title search (ii) property consultancy (iii) legal consultancy. All these were incurred in connection with the investment of capital gains in the residential bungalow located

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

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

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

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

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

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

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

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

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

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

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

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

105 taxmann.com 274. In the present case, the AO vide para 7.6 merely observed that the assessee company made substantial investments in mutual funds and therefore, incurred substantial expenditure to earn the exempt income and in the circumstances, he was of the opinion that rule 8D has to be applied. Therefore, the question that comes up for consideration before

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

68 (Del), DCIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del), Tata Consultancy Services State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)271 ITR 401 (SC), Dassault Systems KK, In Re (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR), Geoquast Systems BV, Inre (2010) 327 ITR 1 (AAR), DDIT Vs. Reliane Industries Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 506 (Mumbai), ITAT. 8. On the receipt of the above

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PARTH MULTITRADE PVT LTD, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2008-09

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as unexplained cash credit even though the appellant provided all information to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the shareholders. Therefore, the same may be deleted. d. The learned AO was not justified in charging interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5 CO No.28/PUN/2024 e. The learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. JHAVERI FLEXO INDIA PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

section 69C of the act as unexplained expenditure. In my opinion, the AO has failed to follow the due procedure of not only assessment pursuant to search but has also failed to fulfil the conditions of S. 69C of the act. In view of the reasons above, the addition

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

68,835/-. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. IT(SS)A Nos.23/PUN/2024 to 25/PUN/2024 (AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20) (Revenue) 24. The grounds raised by the Revenue in the instant appeals are identical. We, therefore, take up IT(SS)A No.23/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2017-18 as the lead case. 25. Facts of the case