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

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

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

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

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

section 68\nof the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of\njurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no\nspecific finding by ld.CIT(A).\n8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising\nvarious issues including the legal issue and claimed that in\nview of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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

section 68\nof the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of\njurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no\nspecific finding by ld.CIT(A).\n8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising\nvarious issues including the legal issue and claimed that in\nview of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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

section 68\nof the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of\njurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no\nspecific finding by ld.CIT(A).\n8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising\nvarious issues including the legal issue and claimed that in\nview of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

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

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by the Assessing Officer. He accordingly submitted the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is not justified in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in treating such income declared under the IDS, 2016 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and charged to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 68 is called for. Since the assessee has placed the contract note, payment through cheques identifying the company whose shares were transacted, the genuineness of claim of long term capital gain should not have been doubted. We do not find merit in these contentions of the assessee in the light of the facts that there is prevalent practice

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 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

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 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

SADASHIV NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 (2),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

68 SOT 197) and the decision of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gurpal Singh vs. ITO (159 ITD 797), he submitted that mere cash deposits in the bank account per se are not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that non application of mind

PRASHANT VITHOBA NAVALE,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

68 SOT 197) and the decision of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gurpal Singh vs. ITO (159 ITD 797), he submitted that mere cash deposits in the bank account per se are not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that non application of mind

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

section 68 adopted by the AO, which was\nordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of\nsection 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted\non 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting\napproach, while the AO has also touched upon this issue

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 17 20. The Ld. DR strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 21. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand referring to page 196 of the paper book drew the attention of the Bench to the details of unsecured loans as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016. Referring to page 197

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

197/- 37,92,68,944/- 2015-16 27,54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This