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

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

BHUSHAN UTTAMRAO BACHHAV,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

section 68 of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee submitted confirmation letters in most of the cases and also the affidavits in all cases confirming the said payment of Rs.4 lakh each in cash to the assessee. Lack of credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions etc. were scrupulously examined by the AO. Unsatisfied with the explanation

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 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, 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, 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1278 To 1280/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 To 2004-05

164 68,03,909 1,26,255 2004-05 1,10,20,02,935 1,10,20,029 70,24,120 39,95,909 13. It would be relevant to mention here that regular assessments for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Thus, assessment years under appeal are non- abated assessments

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1278 To 1280/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 To 2004-05

164 68,03,909 1,26,255 2004-05 1,10,20,02,935 1,10,20,029 70,24,120 39,95,909 13. It would be relevant to mention here that regular assessments for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Thus, assessment years under appeal are non- abated assessments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1278 To 1280/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 To 2004-05

164 68,03,909 1,26,255 2004-05 1,10,20,02,935 1,10,20,029 70,24,120 39,95,909 13. It would be relevant to mention here that regular assessments for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Thus, assessment years under appeal are non- abated assessments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1278 To 1280/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 To 2004-05

164 68,03,909 1,26,255 2004-05 1,10,20,02,935 1,10,20,029 70,24,120 39,95,909 13. It would be relevant to mention here that regular assessments for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Thus, assessment years under appeal are non- abated assessments

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