M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

120 of the Act, the Board may delegate\nits powers to Income-tax authorities as specified in section 116, for\nissuing the orders in writing, for the exercise of the powers and\nperformance of the functions by all or any of the other Income-tax\nAuthorities who are subordinate to it.\n7.1.7 Thus, it can be said that once

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 has accepted the same in a mechanical manner. 22. We find the provisions of section 263 of the Act read as under: ―263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO.,LATUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 68, 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the Act. 4.4 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT 120

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO. ,NANDED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , NANDED

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 68, 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the Act. 4.4 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT 120

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the Act: 9.1 The Hon‟ble Gujrat High Court in case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs CIT 120

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the Act: 5.3.1. The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs CIT 120

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. II. To examine the feasibility of addition on account of agriculture expenditure of Rs.4,36,820/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee made multifold arguments. Firstly, he stated that ld. PCIT erred

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

120;\n82[(iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer;]\n(b) \"record\" shall include and shall be deemed always to have\nincluded all records relating to any proceeding under this Act\navailable at the time of examination by the Principal Chief\nCommissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner;\n(c) where any order

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 68 are absent, the addition made is 9 prima facie unjustified. He submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC without understanding the evidence on record in a very cryptic order has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is not correct. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing

M/S OM NAMAH SHIVAY TRADING COMPANY,,PARAOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 the recipient has to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. In the present case only identity has been proved as Mr Harish Kantilal Shah in a statement before the investigation wing Mumbai and on the overall perspective of evidence furnished by the appellant do not seem to have much creditworthiness. As regards as genuineness

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. MARSH FINCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

section 68.” I find that the ADIT had made inquiries by issuing notices u/s 133(6) dt. 31-10- 2014 whereby all the 3 companies had furnished their replies confirming having acquired the shares. In support thereof they filed their balance sheet, bank statement highlighting the details of amount paid and the share allotment advise received by them. Even

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

120,124 (Ker) • CIT vs Pranlal P Doshi 201 ITR 756 (Guj) 8.4 The third burden which was on A.O. was to establish that cessation if at all has happened, has happened in the year under appeal. After all, liability to tax can be fixed in the year to which it pertains and to no other year. Merely because

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

68 of the Act i.e. the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transaction. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the various findings given by the Assessing Officer deleted the addition, which is not correct. 24. So far as the validity of re-assessment proceedings is concerned, he submitted that the Assessing Officer

VISHAL ASHOK CHUGERA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant has failed to substantiate the loans raised from these loan creditors. 33. As regards to the loan raised from Shri Ramesh Chhabria, it is seen that Shri Ramesh Chhabria had disclosed an income of Rs.6,21,120

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

120-B of IPC and further, it was dealing with "books of accounts". Whereas, in the case on hand, it is an income tax proceeding before a quasijudicial authority. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of Rangroopchand Chordia (supra), relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, while dealing with section

SAGAR UTTAM MURHE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

Section 68 unexplained cash credit of Rs.17,25,000/- and that too, without converting it into a “complete” scrutiny as prescribed in the CBDT circular dated 14.07.2016 baring No. 5/2016. 3. Learned DR could also not place on record any material that the Assessing Officer had indeed undertaken all necessary steps as well as all approval(s) as prescribed

SAGAR UTTAM MURHE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

Section 68 unexplained cash credit of Rs.17,25,000/- and that too, without converting it into a “complete” scrutiny as prescribed in the CBDT circular dated 14.07.2016 baring No. 5/2016. 3. Learned DR could also not place on record any material that the Assessing Officer had indeed undertaken all necessary steps as well as all approval(s) as prescribed

HABIBULLAH ABBASALI CHAUDHARY ,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

68 lace to be paid to him by mid May to finish the money matter. We paid him Rs.68 lakhs by end of May 2006 Since we paid him late by few days, he demanded for another Rs.50 lakhs to be paid to him by 10th June 2006. At that time he made us sign a document which stated that

HABIBULLAH ABBASALI CHAUDHARY,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

68 lace to be paid to him by mid May to finish the money matter. We paid him Rs.68 lakhs by end of May 2006 Since we paid him late by few days, he demanded for another Rs.50 lakhs to be paid to him by 10th June 2006. At that time he made us sign a document which stated that