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

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 of 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 from

SHRI PARSHWANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTH,SATARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

68 of the IT Act, the same were charged to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 5 7. Before CIT(A), it was contended that out of the total deposits of Rs.7,20,24,836/- an amount of Rs.1,35,53,000/- in respect of 59 depositors had already been treated by the Authority

GRUHA NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CRICLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 68, hence the interest paid on such amount is also being disallowed as bogus payment of interest……” (iii) Estimating the business profit of the assessee for AY 2018-19 at Rs.5,60,10,288/- @ 10% of amount of sale of units and closing work-in- progress (WIP) during the year and rejecting the books of account u/s 145

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

145 of the Income-tax Act or illegal\nin any form. It is meant for a uniform administration of law by all the\nIncome-tax authorities in a specific situation and, therefore, validly issued\nunder section 119 of the Income-tax Act. As such, the circular would be\nbinding on the department The relevant circulars of Central Board

M/S. K.G.AGRO PROCESSOR PVT.LTD,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DHULE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662 & 663 /Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 142 &143 that A.O. may also act on “the material gathered” by him. The word “material” clearly shows that the A.O. is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and like, and that he may act on material which may not strictly speaking be accepted evidence in a court of law. All relevant circumstances which we have

M/S. K.G.AGRO PROCESSOR PVT.LTD,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DHULE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662 & 663 /Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 142 &143 that A.O. may also act on “the material gathered” by him. The word “material” clearly shows that the A.O. is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and like, and that he may act on material which may not strictly speaking be accepted evidence in a court of law. All relevant circumstances which we have

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

145 of the income-tax Act or illegal\nin any form. It is meant for a uniform administration of law by all the\nIncome-tax authorities in a specific situation and, therefore, validly issued\nunder section 119 of the Income-tax Act. As such, the circular would be\nbinding on the department The relevant circulars of Central Board

KOLHAPUR TIMBER AND FURNITURE MART,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

145/- is to be assessed as 3 ‘income from other sources’ u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and accordingly assessed the income of Rs.49,72,790/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and referred to plethora of decisions contending that it was admitted in the statement recorded during the course of survey that the source

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

145/- in the hands of his wife on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gains for assessment year 2014-15. However, vide letter dated 04.09.2015 the assessee retracted from his earlier statement. It was contended that the long term capital gains are genuine and correct and legitimate deduction has been claimed u/s 10(38) on the purchase/sale of shares

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

145 and are meant to ensure that\nassessees of the kind specified who have to account for all such amounts\nof interest on doubtful loans are uniformly given the benefit under\n4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the\nfollowing solitary ground of appeal :\n\"On the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

section 145(3) of the Act. 12.4 After rejecting the book results for A.Y. 2010-11, I estimate the profit of the business of the appellant @13% of the business receipts before remuneration to partners or actual income returned by the appellant. The business profit for A.Y. 2010-11 @13% on contract receipts of Rs.12,99,58,419/- works

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

section 145(3) of the Act. 12.4 After rejecting the book results for A.Y. 2010-11, I estimate the profit of the business of the appellant @13% of the business receipts before remuneration to partners or actual income returned by the appellant. The business profit for A.Y. 2010-11 @13% on contract receipts of Rs.12,99,58,419/- works

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

section 263 jurisdiction. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and find no reason to affirm the PCIT’s following detailed discussion:- “3. I have carefully considered facts of the case as well as reply of the assessee reproduced as above. It is undisputed that there were huge

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and this ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 2. Ground No.-2: pertain to the addition of Rs.7,26,386/- on payment made to M/s Franco Italy by M/s. Pranav International Ltd. as bogus. The AO disallowed the amount of Rs.7,23,386/- which was incurred by appellant company towards spare parts

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

145 (Old)/2015-16, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. 2 A.Y. : 2012-13 Shri Roashan Vishnu Pathare, Heard both the parties. Case file perused 2. Coming to Assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing section

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

145/- in the hands of his wife on account of bogus Long Term Capital\nGains for assessment year 2014-15. However, vide letter dated 04.09.2015 the\nassessee retracted from his earlier statement. It was contended that the long term\ncapital gains are genuine and correct and legitimate deduction has been claimed u/s\n10(38) on the purchase/sale of shares

LATE HARILAL MAVJIBHAI PATEL,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2698/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68. Appellant prays to hold that Sec.68 has no application. Appellant prays to cancel the applicability of Sec. 115BBE accepting the same as Business Income to which Normal Tax rate will be applicable. 3 Late Harilal Mavjibhai Patel 2. CIT(A) has erred in not following the Jurisdictional Pune ITAT decision on the identical issue brought his Notice. Appellant prays

KISHOR VITTHAL KOLHE,JALGAON vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

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

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.64,94,250/- being the difference between the cash balance as on 01.04.2016 and the cash balance as on 08.11.2016 by observing as under: 4 7. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under