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

d. Penalty Further, S. 68 additions are lead to penal proceedings which trigger penalty u/s 271(1)(c)/270A, etc. As against, no any Penalty per se, is applicable for taxation u/s 115BBC As such, forming 'reasons' for one phenomenon, and taxing the same for some different phenomenon, is completely conflicting. Learned AO is incorrect is starting the 147 proceedings

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

d. Penalty Further, S. 68 additions are lead to penal proceedings which trigger penalty u/s 271(1)(c)/270A, etc. As against, no any Penalty per se, is applicable for taxation u/s 115BBC As such, forming 'reasons' for one phenomenon, and taxing the same for some different phenomenon, is completely conflicting. Learned AO is incorrect is starting the 147 proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in deleting the of Rs.17,80,059/- made on account of interest paid on alleged unsecured loans is 37 of the Income tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the facts

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

d)\nSince most of the donors have denied having made any donations to\nthe assessee trust, the claim of donations made in the books of\naccounts from FY 2011-12 to FY 2016-17 are not genuine. Therefore\nthe claimed donations need to be taxed u/s 68 of the I.T Act as the\nassessee has not been able to explain

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

d)\nSince most of the donors have denied having made any donations to\nthe assessee trust, the claim of donations made in the books of\naccounts from FY 2011-12 to FY 2016-17 are not genuine. Therefore\nthe claimed donations need to be taxed u/s 68 of the I.T Act as the\nassessee has not been able to explain

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

d)\nSince most of the donors have denied having made any donations to\nthe assessee trust, the claim of donations made in the books of\naccounts from FY 2011-12 to FY 2016-17 are not genuine. Therefore\nthe claimed donations need to be taxed u/s 68 of the I.T Act as the\nassessee has not been able to explain

SOPAN BANDOBA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.03.2024 of the CIT(A), Pune-11 relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from business through joint venture agreement for development of ancestral

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.

1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(b), the benefit of section 11 should be taken away. XVI. As regard to the salary paid to Shri U.Y. Pawar, ld. CIT-DR submitted that the action of recovery was initiated only after search action and the ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition. XVII. As regards to the prior period expenses

V J & SONS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

68 of the Act as unexplained deposits. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 26,390/-. The assessee was engaged in the business of distributing spare parts of MICO on wholesale basis in Kolhapur, Sangli and Ratnagiri districts. Search action under section

HEM KIRAN DIESELS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

68 of the Act as unexplained deposits. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 26,390/-. The assessee was engaged in the business of distributing spare parts of MICO on wholesale basis in Kolhapur, Sangli and Ratnagiri districts. Search action under section

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

D. The appellant has discharged the burden u/s 68 by furnishing the supporting documents. E. There is no material to show that the money is unaccounted income of the appellant.” 11. Ld. Authorised Representative also drew the attention of the Bench to the paper book/documents filed before the Tribunal on 13.11.2024 and 18.11.2024 and the index of the same

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

D. Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases or requisition.--\nNo order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing\nOfficer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment\nyear referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of Section 153-A] or the\n assessment year referred to in clause

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR vs. UPPAL JITENDRA SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

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

section 68 of the Act. Then the Assessing Officer had proceeded to verify the information filed by issuing notices u/s 133(6) which were returned un-served and then issued a commission u/s 133(1)(d) to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in respect of 16 parties to verify the transactions and who, in turn, had issued summons u/s 131

UPPAL SHAH PROP-J K SUGARS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

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

section 68 of the Act. Then the Assessing Officer had proceeded to verify the information filed by issuing notices u/s 133(6) which were returned un-served and then issued a commission u/s 133(1)(d) to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in respect of 16 parties to verify the transactions and who, in turn, had issued summons u/s 131

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

D. Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases or requisition.--\nNo order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing\nOfficer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment\nyear referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of Section 153-A] or the\n assessment year referred to in clause

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

1),\nMumbai (2021) 131\ntaxmann.com 327\n(Bombay) (Refer para\n15 on page no. 3-12)\n\n29. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nSonal Ashish Shah vs. ITO vide ITA No.2541/PUN/2024 order dated 03.06.2025\nfor assessment year 2014-15, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of\nthe

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

1),\nMumbai (2021) 131\ntaxmann.com 327\n(Bombay) (Refer para\n15 on page no. 3-12)\n\n29. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nSonal Ashish Shah vs. ITO vide ITA No.2541/PUN/2024 order dated 03.06.2025\nfor assessment year 2014-15, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of\nthe

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

D. Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases or requisition.--\nNo order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing\nOfficer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment\nyear referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of Section 153-A] or the\n assessment year referred to in clause