GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 68 was to be confirmed; SLP dismissed 20 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. 8 Konark Structural Engineers 73 to 80 Where assessee-company received 8 (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2018] 90

GRI RENEWABLE INDUSTRIES S L (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GONVARRI EOLICA S L),MADRID vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE -1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 90(1) of the Act leaving no room for any separate notification for the importation. The sequitur is that that the authorities below were not justified in denying the benefit of the straight rate of tax at 10% as per the DTAA read with Portuguese DTAA and also additionally charging Surcharge and Education cess. 14 GRI Renewable Industries

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 90(1)(a)(i) of the Act has to be granted only to the extent of such doubly taxed income and not beyond that. The assessee paid total taxes in 26 and IT(TP) A.No.10/Bang/2014 foreign countries to the tune of Rs.1,91,52,577/-. The amount of doubly taxed income is Rs.10.13 crore. As the income

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

Section 68 of the Act has been discharged and consequently the burden shifted over to the Assessing Officer to prove the contrary which the ld. Assessing Officer failed. 11. We further observe that the ld. CIT(A) has made a thorough examination of all these facts and also referred to various judicial pronouncements adjudicating similar type of issues

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

Section 68 of the Act has been discharged and consequently the burden shifted over to the Assessing Officer to prove the contrary which the ld. Assessing Officer failed. 11. We further observe that the ld. CIT(A) has made a thorough examination of all these facts and also referred to various judicial pronouncements adjudicating similar type of issues

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

Section 68 of the Act has been discharged and consequently the burden shifted over to the Assessing Officer to prove the contrary which the ld. Assessing Officer failed. 11. We further observe that the ld. CIT(A) has made a thorough examination of all these facts and also referred to various judicial pronouncements adjudicating similar type of issues

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

Section 68 of the Act has been discharged and consequently the burden shifted over to the Assessing Officer to prove the contrary which the ld. Assessing Officer failed. 11. We further observe that the ld. CIT(A) has made a thorough examination of all these facts and also referred to various judicial pronouncements adjudicating similar type of issues

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered – • Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings. • Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

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

90,000/- remuneration paid to working partners since the same was not authorized by partnership deed as discussed in Para 13 above 2 Variation on account of difference amount of to be Rs.49,93,038/- taxed u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credits as discussed in Para 14 above 3 Variation on account of disallowance of inflated

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.

section 68 of the Act. Respectfully following the above decisions and facts of the present case, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.4,26,08,528/- made by him. These grounds of appeal are allowed.” Sources of Funds of the Kagliwals: Further, we examined the 16. sources of funds amounting to Rs.4,26,08,528/- invested

SANDVIK MACHINING SOLUTION AB, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS) SANDVIK TOLLING SEVERIGE AB),,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

68,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee. On perusal of the details in return of income furnished, it was noticed that assessee had received Rs.59,66,099/- from Sandvik Asia Private Limited (SAPL) on account of IT support services

RAHUL NEMGONDA PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 68 of the Act\nas unexplained cash credit. He, however, contended that the addition\nshould be restricted only to peak credit to the extent of Rs.15,27,000/-.\nHe argued that bringing to tax the gross amount of cash deposits would\nresult in double taxation of the same income as the amounts withdrawn\nwould be always available against

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. II. To examine the feasibility of addition on account of agriculture expenditure of Rs.4,36,820/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee made multifold arguments. Firstly, he stated that ld. PCIT erred

M/S. MAYFAIR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2233/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mayfair Builders & Vs Ito, Ward Developers, 2(3), Pune 1027, New Nana Peth, Pune-411001 Maharashtra Pan-Aacfm1312R Appellant Respondent

90,000/- 4. Ashwini Sahani 3,00,000/- 5. Aslam Baghwan 1,75,000/- 6. Mahmood Musavi 3,30,000/- Total 24,50,250/- 7. From perusal of section 68

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE vs. DIPTI NARENDRA LULLA, PUNE

68 of the Act amounting to Rs.5,16,85,602 is not warranted and\ntherefore is deleted. Accordingly grounds of appeal no 2 & 3 are allowed.\n9. Ground No. 4\n9.1 In this regard submission made by the appellant is as below:-\nThe said addition relates to interest paid to the creditors for which additions have\nbeen made earlier. Elaborate

WILDERNEST BETTER LIVING & MAINTENANCE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.856/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Wildernest Better Living V The Income Tax Officer, Maintenance Co-Operative S Ward-6(1), Pune. Society Limited, Plot No.58, 59 & 60, Woldernest Society, Khadakwasla, Taluka Haveli, Pune – 411024. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Arpit Dnyandeo Dambhare & Shri Deepak Sasar – Ca’S Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22 Dated

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik, has erred in confirming the same. 4. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making addition of an amount of Rs.1,00,979/- under section 69C on allegation of commission paid by the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

90,000/- Tessitura Monti India Pvt. Ltd. Rs.15,37,500/- Maharathi Textiles Rs.1,55,686/- Pari Plast Industries Rs.1,59,082/- Shrishti Machineries Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,02,170/- Total Rs.1,15,47,555/- 3. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.1,84,93,241/- being between the outstanding Provision for warranty for the assessment year