KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

68,26,650/-.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal(s) before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging both the orders dated 08.03.2023 and 03.07.2023 passed under section 143(3) and section 154 of the Act respectively. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

68,26,650/-.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal(s) before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging both the orders dated 08.03.2023 and 03.07.2023 passed under section 143(3) and section 154 of the Act respectively. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA

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

68 of the Act, we\nwould first like to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in the CO\nchallenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings. It is an admitted fact that\nthe original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2014 and the\nAssessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3

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

68 of the Act, we\nwould first like to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in the CO\nchallenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings. It is an admitted fact that\nthe original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2014 and the\nAssessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

ii) of clause (a) of section 40 of the Act. The relevant part of Hon‘ble Supreme Court judgment is as under: 7. The above legislative history of the Finance Acts, as also the practice, would appear to indicate that the term ―Income tax‖ as employed in Section 2 includes surcharge as also the special and the additional

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

143(3) on 26/02/2013 and the action taken U/S. 147 is after expiry of the four years from the end of A.Y.2012-13 and therefore the reassessment proceeding are initiated beyond the time limit and are thus time barred and bad in law and not sustainable. 4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the addition

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

143(3) on 26/02/2013 and the action taken U/S. 147 is after expiry of the four years from the end of A.Y.2012-13 and therefore the reassessment proceeding are initiated beyond the time limit and are thus time barred and bad in law and not sustainable. 4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the addition

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

143(3) on 26/02/2013 and the action taken U/S. 147 is after expiry of the four years from the end of A.Y.2012-13 and therefore the reassessment proceeding are initiated beyond the time limit and are thus time barred and bad in law and not sustainable. 4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 of the Act. 7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries regarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain charges i.e. commission as is the case with all such penny stocks involving accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified.\n20. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of\nChanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he\nsubmitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where\naddition based on penny stock transaction had already

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

143(3) was made on\n25/03/2015. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has\nexpired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceeding u/s 147\nof the Act are reason to believe that income for the year under\nconsideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the\npart of the assessee to disclose fully and truly

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

143(3) was made on\n25/03/2015. Since, 4 years from the end of the relevant year has\nexpired in this case, the requirements to initiate proceeding u/s 147\nof the Act are reason to believe that income for the year under\nconsideration has escaped assessment because of failure on the\npart of the assessee to disclose fully and truly