SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR,(HUF),,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.260/Pun/2018 िनधा!रण वष! / Assessment Year : 2014-15

68 of the Act as invoked by the AO in the assessment order. In the impugned order, CIT(A) held that such changes in sections is permissible by the provisions of section 292B

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

68,72,632 to the taxable income of the Appellant including an adjustment of INR 2,10,10,000/- on account of transfer pricing matters and INR 58,62,632/- on account of corporate tax matters. 4 2. The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Board) approval for transferring

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

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court\nalso noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which\nalone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the\nname of an entity that had ceased to exist.\n29. Accordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law,\nwe are satisfied that

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court also noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which alone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist. 29. Accordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law, we are satisfied that

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court also noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which alone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist. 29. Accordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law, we are satisfied that

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Act. He argued since the approval was granted for addition u/s. 69C of the Act and the provisions u/s. 115BBE are applicable with a charging rate at 60%, there is no discrepancy or error in the tax rate applied by the AO, it is in compliance with the provisions

ANIL BANSILAL LODHA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK - 1, NASHIK

In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

68 taxmann.com 22 (Mad) 2. Hiraben Babubahi Patel Vs. Pr.CIT – ITA No.700/Ahd/2019 3. Mohammad Sharif Siddiqui through legal heir vs. ITO – ITA No.1179/Mum/2022 4. Sheela Devi Vs. PCIT – ITA No.1853/Del/2021 5. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of ld.PCIT. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. In the instant case, it is a fact

M/S. EATON INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.536/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd., 145, Off Mumbai Pune Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pimpri, Pune – 411018 …. Pan: Aabce4955C Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

68,000/- to the international transactions of manufacturing business in respect of the truck components unit and an adjustment of ₹ 77,78,613/- to the international transactions in respect of import of fixed assets. The Assessing Officer thereafter, passed draft assessment order dated 26.03.2013 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in deleting the of Rs.17,80,059/- made on account of interest paid on alleged unsecured loans is 37 of the Income tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the facts

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from\nCentral Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to\nInformation Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted\napproval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from\nCentral Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to\nInformation Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted\napproval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from\nCentral Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to\nInformation Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted\napproval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from\nCentral Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to\nInformation Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted\napproval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from\nCentral Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to\nInformation Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted\napproval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

68,417/- and ₹ 32,77,864/- in assessment year 2011-12. Further, unexplained investment in jewellery was added in the hands of assessee by Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,073/- in assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 13,298/- in assessment year 2008-09, ₹4,38,888/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 3,18,182/- in assessment year 2011-12. Another addition