GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said excel

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said excel

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said excel

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

292C and the nature of the transaction mentioned, the documents found cannot be considered as "Dumb Documents". 3.10. The next argument taken by the assessee is that if the receipts are taken for taxation, it cannot be said that the entire cash receipts is income of the respective assessment year. The assessee has further submitted that in the said excel

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

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

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

292C was clearly applicable" (ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi): The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation.” 9. Relying on various decisions, the Assessing

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LL,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

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

292C was clearly applicable\"\n(ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi):\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised\nunder section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut\nthat presumption by offering a plausible explanation.\"\n9.\nRelying on various decisions

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

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

292C was clearly applicable\"\n(ii) CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi):\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, there was a presumption raised\nunder section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut\nthat presumption by offering a plausible explanation.\"\n9.\nRelying on various decisions

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.

292C of the Act and the legal position as enunciated by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case (supra). From reading of the above para of the judgement in the case of M. Vivek (supra), it would be clear that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. C. Shukla reported

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. HABIBULLAH ABBASALI CHAUDHARY, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

68 lace to be paid to him by mid May to finish the money matter. We paid him Rs.68 lakhs by end of May 2006 Since we paid him late by few days, he demanded for another Rs.50 lakhs to be paid to him by 10th June 2006. At that time he made us sign a document which stated that

HABIBULLAH ABBASALI CHAUDHARY ,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

68 lace to be paid to him by mid May to finish the money matter. We paid him Rs.68 lakhs by end of May 2006 Since we paid him late by few days, he demanded for another Rs.50 lakhs to be paid to him by 10th June 2006. At that time he made us sign a document which stated that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. HABIBULLAH ABBASALI CHAUDHARY, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

68 lace to be paid to him by mid May to finish the money matter. We paid him Rs.68 lakhs by end of May 2006 Since we paid him late by few days, he demanded for another Rs.50 lakhs to be paid to him by 10th June 2006. At that time he made us sign a document which stated that

HABIBULLAH ABBASALI CHAUDHARY,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

68 lace to be paid to him by mid May to finish the money matter. We paid him Rs.68 lakhs by end of May 2006 Since we paid him late by few days, he demanded for another Rs.50 lakhs to be paid to him by 10th June 2006. At that time he made us sign a document which stated that

GIRISH B. CHAUDHARI, L/O. OF LATE SHRI BHAGWAT N CHAUDHARI,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ssa)A No.80/Pun/2017 (Assessment Year:2009-10) Smt. Mahesh Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar (Central - 1) Vs. Yawat Road, Bhusawal Nashik Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Adkpc7175P Appellant Respondent Shri Girish Bhagwat Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer (Lh Of Late Bhagwat N . Chaudhary) (Central - 1) 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar Vs. Nashik Yawat Road, Bhusawal Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Aalpc0512G Appellant Respondent

292C of the Act. The question in this factual backdropis as to whether the seized document herein satisfies the foregoing presumption or the same stands rebutted. We note from the case file that all the corresponding entries have been made on a pad of the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. We wish to observe here that this company

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

68 of the Act and addition of Rs.9,15,732/- being the alleged commission paid to entry providers being 6% of such long term capital gain on adhoc basis. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following chart: Search material in case of Mr. Dilip Kotecha Date of search – search – 9/8/2011 Search Asstt Date Particulars Qty. Rate Amount materia

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

section 19 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 68 of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in making the addition of unsecured loans. E. As regards, the addition made on account of alleged receipt of on-money consideration in cash, as well as, the payment of alleged on-money purchase

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

292C of the Act, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers found from the premises of the assessee fall outside the scope of section 132(4A) of the Act. Referring to the language of the said Act, ld. Counsel mentioned that papers or other documents do not constitute “books of account”. Therefore, principles of presumption