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

68 has been referred but thereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of the Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in this regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

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

68 has been referred but thereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of the Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in this regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

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

68 has been referred but\nthereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of\nthe Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in\nthis regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon'ble High\nCourt of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT\n(2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

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

68 has been referred but\nthereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of\nthe Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in\nthis regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon'ble High\nCourt of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT\n(2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

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

68 has been referred but\nthereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of\nthe Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in\nthis regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon'ble High\nCourt of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT\n(2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

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

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 or corroborative evidence

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

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 exchange authorities

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 115JB(2) of the IT Act. 3. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed the rectification order dated 31.03.2022 u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the IT Act and determined deemed total income u/s 115JB of the IT Act at Rs.2,39,02,89,117/- and raised a demand of Rs.40,68

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 115JB(2) of the IT Act. 3. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed the rectification order dated 31.03.2022 u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the IT Act and determined deemed total income u/s 115JB of the IT Act at Rs.2,39,02,89,117/- and raised a demand of Rs.40,68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 154 of the Act for making such disallowance. Against the findings of Assessing Officer the Revenue is in appeal. 3. The solitary ground raised by the Department in appeal is as under : “1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the issue under consideration

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

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\nsolely on generalized investigation reports and third party statements. He\nsubmitted that without concrete or corroborative evidence such as adverse\nstatements from stock exchange authorities

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D. The same was amended by the 2nd Amendment Act; w.e.f. 1- 4-2017, enhancing the rate to 60%. Hence there was no new liability created and the rate of tax merely stood enhanced which is applicable to the assessments carried on in that year. The enhanced rate applies from the commencement

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

section 35D of the Act, the assessee was eligible to claim one fifth of the project cost i.e. Rs.68,87,660/-. Non restriction of claim has resulted in excess allowance of deduction of Rs.2,75,50,640/- (3,44,38,300- 68,87,660/-). 2. Since it was mistake apparent from the records, notice u/s 154

IMPERIAL HOUSING, PUNE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

section 35D of the Act, the assessee was eligible to claim one fifth of the project cost i.e. Rs.68,87,660/-. Non restriction of claim has resulted in excess allowance of deduction of Rs.2,75,50,640/- (3,44,38,300- 68,87,660/-). 2. Since it was mistake apparent from the records, notice u/s 154

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

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

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

154 taxmann.com 508 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that Where Commissioner issued a notice under section 263 to assessee, however no opportunity was given to assessee for defending or presenting its case, and moreover, revenue recorded a contrary finding in respect of reply submitted by assessee, impugned order passed

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the book of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the assessing

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

68 is not attracted in this case. The addition is wholly unjustified and deserves to be deleted in its entirety. 7. Without prejudice to the legal grounds above, the learned CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper examination of facts and merits of the case. The learned CIT(A) has ignored the genuine reasons, including health