GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 68 15 CIT Vs Midas Golden 127 to Where share capital of assessee- Distelleries (P.) Ltd. (2021) 144 company

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

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

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

127 of the Act.\"\n7.1.9 Assessee has relied upon the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case\nof Heart Foundation of India vs CIT in which it has been held that PCIT\nCentral has no jurisdiction to decide about the issue of registration u/s\n12AA of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, it is brought on record that\nthe

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

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Leelavati Vijaykumar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Kotecha, 2(1), Nashik. 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Alvpk4435H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case Vide Ita Nos.1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13, Order Dated 26.04.2018 Had Adjudicated The Issue Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Above Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, On Miscellaneous

section 68 does not apply and even though the source of Rs. 47,12,511/- was attributable to advance received from Dipesh as above said and the said explanation was rejected by the Assessing Officer even during the remand proceedings. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

127 of the Act, dated 16.11.2022. During the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee calling for various details, in response to which the assessee submitted its reply from time to time. Dissatisfied with the submissions of the assessee

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE

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

127 of the Act, dated 16.11.2022. During the\nassessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, statutory notice(s) u/s\n143(2)/142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served\nupon the assessee calling for various details, in response to which the\nassessee submitted its reply from time to time. Dissatisfied with the\nsubmissions of the assessee

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

127 of the Act, dated 16.11.2022. During the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee calling for various details, in response to which the assessee submitted its reply from time to time. Dissatisfied with the submissions of the assessee

VANAZ ENGINEERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -7,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1959/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vanaz Engineers Limited, 85/1, Paud Road, Pune-411 038. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacv6873B बनाम / V/S. Addl. Cit, Range- 7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Vanaz Engineers Limited (‘The Appellant’), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 12Th May, 2017 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 5 ['Cit(A)’], Pune (Received By The Appellant On 20Th June, 2017) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) On The Following Grounds Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Has:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: 6. erred in not giving a specific direction to the learned AO with respect to the disallowance of freight expenses amounting to Rs. 10,68,127

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

127 was passed. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in adding Rs.44,220/- and Rs.1,00,000/- u/s.68 by way of undisclosed cash credit in the bank account even though the Appellant is not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore, section 68

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

127 was passed. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in adding Rs.44,220/- and Rs.1,00,000/- u/s.68 by way of undisclosed cash credit in the bank account even though the Appellant is not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore, section 68

DEELIP V.KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -(1),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deelip Vijaykumar Kotecha, The Acit, Cc-(1), 1, Pradhan Apartment, Pratap Vs Nashik. Nagar, Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Abcpk 8441 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai –Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The A.Y. 2010-11 Dated 27.04.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.09.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ [A] Grounds Of Appeal 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Without Having Jurisdiction Because, No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant U/S 127 & Also Disregarding The Objections Raised U/S 292Bb In This Regard.

127 of the Act. 5. To quash the penalty order passed which is contrary to the judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. 6. To delete the penalty u/s 274 rws 271(l)(c) amounting to Rs.5,69,552/-. [C] General: - • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -(1),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1258/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Leelavati Vijaykumar Kotecha, The Dy.Commissioner Of 4, Teachers Colonyh, Ring Vs Income Tax, Cc(1), Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Nashik. Pan: Alvpk 4435 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai –Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The A.Y. 2012-13 Dated 27.04.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “5. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Without Having Jurisdiction Because, No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant U/S 127 & Also Disregarding The Objections Raised U/S 292Bb In This Regard. Without Prejudice To The Above & Alternatively. 6. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) On The Basis Of Notice U/S

127 of the Act. 5. To quash the penalty order passed which is contrary to the judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. 6. To delete the penalty u/s 274 r w s 271(l)(c) amounting to Rs. 52,616/- [C] General: - • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 does not apply. e) No sum is credited or no proof is found by the Assessing Officer of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and made the addition only on the basis of document impounded which is nothing but a dumb document. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 does not apply. e) No sum is credited or no proof is found by the Assessing Officer of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and made the addition only on the basis of document impounded which is nothing but a dumb document. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing