INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. AKASH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

3 Papers Ltd. In other words, M/s. Rama Pulp & Papers Ltd. has a liability to pay to these four individuals and instead of payee for the allottees, M/s. Rama Pulp & Papers Ltd. transferred the same to M/s. Nath Securities Ltd. which, in turn, transferred the liabilities to the present assessee. For squaring of the said liabilities, the assessee allotted

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

253 90,606.00 90,606.00 01/04/2019 FARTELLI WINES PVT LTD Journal 127 86,753.00 86,753.00 01/04/2019 United Breweries Limited Journal 120 - 3,12,889.40 (3,12,889.40) Round Off (6.60) Grand Total 21. Although the assessee had given detailed submission before the CIT(A) / NFAC, however, the CIT(A) / NFAC without considering the arguments of the assessee

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. JHAVERI FLEXO INDIA PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

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

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

68,794/- was made in this year. 4. After making above additions, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A on 29.12.2016, reducing the loss to Rs.6,64,48,650/- as against loss declared by the assessee at Rs.10,88,65,440/- 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order dated 29.12.2016, an appeal was filed

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

3 Sangeeta B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 authorities was also highly questionable. Same was also true in the case of Paper/Jamakharchi/bogus clients. Though they were registered as a client with share brokers and the brokers maintained KYC for such bogus clients also yet these clients did not exist at their given registered address. In many cases, it was found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

3 years invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made the addition of the same by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the same are taxable under the provisions of section

DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

3 years invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made the addition of the same by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the same are taxable under the provisions of section

M/S OM NAMAH SHIVAY TRADING COMPANY,,PARAOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 the recipient has to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. In the present case only identity has been proved as Mr Harish Kantilal Shah in a statement before the investigation wing Mumbai and on the overall perspective of evidence furnished by the appellant do not seem to have much creditworthiness. As regards as genuineness

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence or at the most a substitution of documentary evidence. To put it simply, if an assessee states in his statement u/s 132(4) that he purchased certain asset from undisclosed income