ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

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

section 68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer duly confirmed by him being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant society filed against the Assessment Order passed

TARA CONSTRUCTIONS ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 68. The legitimacy of the so called gifts itself is not proved and it is as such highly suspicious. The AO has elaborately brought out the modus operandi of the appellant. He has verified the transactions and found out that the same are proved to be non-genuine. The plea of the Appellant that on filing

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

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

68 r.w.s. 115BBE; and (d) not allowing set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

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

68 r.w.s. 115BBE; and (d) not allowing set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1 , JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

164 days in filing of the instant appeals in ITA Nos.\n1415 & 1416/PUN/2024 respectively before this Tribunal and\nadmit the appeals for adjudication.\n3. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are\ncommon, first we take up ITA No. 1415/PUN/2024 for A.Y.\n2014-15 as a lead case. The modified grounds of appeal raised\nby the assessee vide letter

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

164 days in filing of the instant appeals in ITA Nos. 1415 & 1416/PUN/2024 respectively before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are common, first we take up ITA No. 1415/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 as a lead case. The modified grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide letter

KAILASWASI NARAYAN ALIAS BAPU PATIL SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

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

68 of the Act has not been conspicuously stated in the assessment order d) Though the Assessing Officer was justified in assessing the trust in the status as an AOP because of not getting its registration u/s 12A of the Act for this relevant assessment year, there was no reason or basis for treating the entire receipts for the purpose

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

164 is a special provision that prevails over the general provision of Section 167B. The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust (supra) has considered the fact in a case of a Trust, where the beneficiaries in the share was determinate and therefore, Hon’ble Court held that the earnings

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

164 is a special provision that prevails over the general provision of Section 167B. The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust (supra) has considered the fact in a case of a Trust, where the beneficiaries in the share was determinate and therefore, Hon’ble Court held that the earnings

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

164 is a special provision that prevails over the general provision of Section 167B. The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust (supra) has considered the fact in a case of a Trust, where the beneficiaries in the share was determinate and therefore, Hon’ble Court held that the earnings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement, vide letters dated November 24, 1998, and March 11, 1999, during the course of assessment proceedings. However, no value could be attached thereto in the present case

ARCHITA TRUST,ICHALKARANJI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR), KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

164 of Income Tax Act and by rejecting the appellants contention that surcharge should be levied at the rate of 15% only. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT has erred in considering the fact that CPC has not correctly processed the return & intimation served under 143(1) is not correct

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

68 on account of accommodation Rs.\nentries\n(ii) Addition u/s 69C on account of commission paid | Rs.\nbeing unexplained\n(iii) Addition on account of interest expenditure\nAssessed Total Income\nRounding off u/s 288A\n7,62,67,463/-\n20,84,927/-\nRs.\n1,97,159/-\n10,78,45,691/-\nRs.10,78,45,690/-\n7.\nThe assessee filed an appeal

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

68 on account of accommodation Rs.\nentries\n(ii) Addition u/s 69C on account of commission paid | Rs.\nbeing unexplained\n(iii) Addition on account of interest expenditure\nAssessed Total Income\nRounding off u/s 288A\n7,62,67,463/-\n20,84,927/-\nRs.\n1,97,159/-\n10,78,45,691/-\nRs.10,78,45,690/-\n7.\nThe assessee filed an appeal

MESSUNG SYSTEMS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2585/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

68,07,610/-. The AO observed that assessee has claimed agency commission of Rs.85,21,164/- on account of commission paid. The assessee has paid commission of Rs.43,00,318/- to Mrs. Microlog Systems Kolhapur. The AO sought explanation of the assessee and assessee submitted that M/s. Microlog Systems Kolhapur proprietor Atul Sindhe is providing agency services to the assessee

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

68,12,295/- the net income over the expenditure was arrived at Rs.42,98,82,657/-. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking to justify the payment made to trustees, being interested persons in view of the provisions of section