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

section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence and the contents of the report of the Investigation\ncarried out in paras

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

249 ITR 290 (Guj) In view of the law laid down in these cases, the amount of excess stock found during the survey viz. Rs. 30,01,449/- is to be added back in the assessee’s regular income. …..The tax on this amount is to be computed u/s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The assessee

ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

68,389/-\nRs.2,18,655/-\nRs.90,472/-\nRs.31,31,51,116/-\n3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who\nwithout admitting the appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the\nground that the assessee has not filed the return of income as well as not\npaid an amount equal to the amount of advance

OLIVE TREE TRADING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Section 249(4) of the Act.” 5. Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee failed to respond to the notice(s) of hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the deficiency letter

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A. (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within a period

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

249/- by making an addition of Rs.29,55,34,049/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.80,80,200/-, to the Nil income returned by the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

249 (SC).\n36. The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\nalso support his case to the proposition that where addition based on penny stock\ntransaction had already been considered while making scrutiny assessment under\nsection 143(3), notice for reopening under section 148 for same transaction could\nnot be issued in absence

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

68 treating such LTCG as bogus was unjustified. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru vs. Union of India (2023) 454 ITR 451 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already

SHASHI STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 2017-18

section 249(4) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the tax payable as on the date of filing of the return of income was Rs.53,38,200/- and the assessee had paid only a sum of Rs.29,98,181/- as self-assessment tax. The ld. AR has brought to our notice the fact of the assessee

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.

249 ITR 533. (ii) Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions, 363 ITR 230. (E). As regards to the allegation of violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) by providing rent free accommodation to Shri Maruti N. Navale, it is submitted that the said Shri Maruti N. Navale had not been paid any remuneration by the appellant society for the following

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249