BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

68,69,836/-, respectively. The ld. AR argued that the approving authority Addl. CIT has to verify everything in detail while giving approval u/s. 153D of the Act relating to section 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. MARSH FINCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

153A in respect of assessee where the assessee’s case was covered under section 132 of the Act dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO has made 2 addition without any incriminating materials found during the search whereas

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

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

section 68.\n\n34. He submitted that the above decisions collectively emphasize that the\nAssessing Officer must conduct independent enquiries and provide specific\nevidence linking the assessee to any alleged bogus transactions rather than relying\n\n32\nITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & Ors\nCO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025\nsolely on generalized investigation reports and third party statements. He\nsubmitted that without concrete

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

section 68.\n\n34. He submitted that the above decisions collectively emphasize that the\nAssessing Officer must conduct independent enquiries and provide specific\nevidence linking the assessee to any alleged bogus transactions rather than relying\n\nsolely on generalized investigation reports and third party statements. He\nsubmitted that without concrete or corroborative evidence such as adverse\nstatements from stock

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

153A(1) and Section\n153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to \"each\n assessment year\" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft\nassessment order before passing the assessment order under Section\n153A.\" [Emphasis supplied]\n12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) refused

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

153A(1) and Section\n153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to \"each\n assessment year\" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft\nassessment order before passing the assessment order under Section\n153A.\"\n[Emphasis supplied]\n12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) refused

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

68,86,771/- which was voluntarily disallowed by the assessee as per section 14A of the IT Act in the original return in earlier proceedings. We further find that the notice u/s 153A

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

68,86,771/- which was voluntarily disallowed by the assessee as per section 14A of the IT Act in the original return in earlier proceedings. We further find that the notice u/s 153A

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

68,86,771/- which was voluntarily disallowed by the assessee as per section 14A of the IT Act in the original return in earlier proceedings. We further find that the notice u/s 153A

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

sections": [ "132", "153A", "143(3)", "153B", "147", "148", "68", "10(38)", "69C", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings were

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

153A." [Emphasis supplied] 12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) refused to interdict the order of the ITAT, which had held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act therein was granted without any independent application of mind. The Court took a view that the approving authority had wielded the power

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

153A." [Emphasis supplied] 12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) refused to interdict the order of the ITAT, which had held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act therein was granted without any independent application of mind. The Court took a view that the approving authority had wielded the power

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

153A." [Emphasis supplied] 12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra) refused to interdict the order of the ITAT, which had held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act therein was granted without any independent application of mind. The Court took a view that the approving authority had wielded the power