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

183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice, however, if after issuing a notice under section 148, the AO accepted the contention of the assessee

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, 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

183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice, however, if after issuing a notice under section 148, the AO accepted the contention of the assessee

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

NANDU ATMARAM WAJEKAR,PANVEL RAIGAD DISTRICT vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL RAIGAD

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

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

section 183 of the Finance Act 2016 in respect of Income Declaration Scheme 2016 is as under- A.Ys. Amount of undisclosed income Nature of undisclosed (in Rs.) income 2014-15 Rs.9,36,68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. DHULE ZILHA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DHULE, DHULE

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

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

183 Taxman 277 (DELHI) held that the Incometax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting addition of Rs. 15 lakhs made under section 68

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

sections of the 68 of Act. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee therefore raised an alternate claim that the income only to the tune of Rs.4,01,183

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

183 4 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 written pages, which according to the Department contained a notings indicating the payments and receipts of on-money consideration at the time of purchase and sale of properties and also indicated the receipt of accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans from shell companies based

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. D.C.I.T, AHMEDNAGAR, CIRCLE-AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

section 144B of the Act vide his order dated 30.09.2021 thereby making addition(s) on account of – (i) sale of sugar at concessional rate to its members at Rs.1,05,81,183/- and (ii) excess sugarcane payment to the farmers of Rs.21,83,24,806/-. 3. Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. AO, the carried the matter

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. D.C.I.T, AHMEDNAGAR, CIRCLE-AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

section\n144B of the Act vide his order dated 30.09.2021 thereby making addition(s)\non account of (i) sale of sugar at concessional rate to its members at\nRs.1,05,81,183/- and (ii) excess sugarcane payment to the farmers of\nRs.21,83,24,806/-.\n3. Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. AO, the carried the matter

SHRI GANESH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KHARKHANA LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DCIT AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

section\n144B of the Act vide his order dated 30.09.2021 thereby making addition(s)\non account of (i) sale of sugar at concessional rate to its members at\nRs.1,05,81,183/- and (ii) excess sugarcane payment to the farmers of\nRs.21,83,24,806/-.\n3.\nAggrieved by such order of the Ld. AO, the carried the matter

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. D.C.I.T, AHMEDNAGAR, CIRCLE-AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

section\n144B of the Act vide his order dated 30.09.2021 thereby making addition(s)\non account of (i) sale of sugar at concessional rate to its members at\nRs.1,05,81,183/- and (ii) excess sugarcane payment to the farmers of\nRs.21,83,24,806/-.\n3.\nAggrieved by such order of the Ld. AO, the carried the matter

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

183/- determined the total income at Rs.29,53,41,873/-. 3. Before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the assessee apart from challenging the addition on account of TP adjustment as well as disallowance of health and education cess, challenged the validity of assessment being made on a non-existing entity. The relevant ground before the DRP reads as under

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. ATUL ASHOK PARAKH, AHMEDNAGAR

The appeal are allowed

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

68,70,000/-, both totaling to Rs.3,18,70,000/-) to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit had also challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition