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

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

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

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

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

section 68\nof the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of\njurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no\nspecific finding by ld.CIT(A).\n8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising\nvarious issues including the legal issue and claimed that in\nview of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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

section 68\nof the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of\njurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no\nspecific finding by ld.CIT(A).\n8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising\nvarious issues including the legal issue and claimed that in\nview of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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

section 68\nof the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of\njurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no\nspecific finding by ld.CIT(A).\n8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising\nvarious issues including the legal issue and claimed that in\nview of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

sections": [ "143(1)(a)", "143(3)", "133A", "131", "148", "68", "44AB", "132(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO on the basis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SATARA CIRCLE,SATARA, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 133A of the Act does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath and the statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value and therefore, any admission made during such statement, cannot be made the basis for any addition. 27. Since in the instant case the assessee has produced full details before

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

68,24,174 at the special rate under section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore

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

68,24,174 at the special rate under section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore

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

133A of the Act was conducted on 27.03.2017 in the business premises of the assessee at Dhayari. During the said survey proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 131 of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income of Rs.2 crore. The same has been offered in the return of income under the head ‘Income from other

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

68,24, 174 at the special rate under section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs. 30.01,449/- which was declared by the assessee as unexplained. The assessee further stated that this unexplained stock has duly been added in the stock while finalizing the Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account. Thus, it is undisputed fact that there was unexplained stock of Rs.30

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

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

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

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

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

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered – Whether nature or income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings. Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing form

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

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered – Whether nature or income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings. Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing form