RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

survey u/s 133A of a third party does not have evidentiary value, especially when the assessee has provided supporting documents and made payments through banking channels. The AO failed to establish the purchases as bogus.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(1)(a)", "143(3)", "133A", "131", "148", "68

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section 68\nof the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of\njurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no\nspecific finding by ld.CIT(A).\n8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising\nvarious issues including the legal issue and claimed that in\nview of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section 68\nof the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of\njurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no\nspecific finding by ld.CIT(A).\n8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising\nvarious issues including the legal issue and claimed that in\nview of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section 68\nof the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of\njurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no\nspecific finding by ld.CIT(A).\n8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising\nvarious issues including the legal issue and claimed that in\nview of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

SOPAN BANDOBA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

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

133A of the Act was conducted on 27.03.2017 in the business premises of the assessee at Dhayari. During the said survey proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 131 of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income of Rs.2 crore. The same has been offered in the return of income under the head ‘Income from other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEEPAK BABURAO VISPUTE, KOPARGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

133A of Rs.4,42,86,847/- as regular income instead of taxing u/s 115BBE of the Act when the case of the assessee is fully covered by the provisions of section 69B of the Act as the assessee failed to furnish sources of unaccounted excess stock unearthed during the survey action. ii) On the facts and the circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

survey on assessee. On revenue's appeal, High Court confirmed\norder of Tribunal. The SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court holding that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by\nHigh Court.\n\n8.8 Among others, the appellant placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional Bombay High Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

survey on assessee. On revenue's appeal, High Court confirmed\norder of Tribunal. The SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court holding that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by\nHigh Court.\n\n8.8 Among others, the appellant placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional Bombay High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

133A of the Act was conducted by the DDIT (Inv.), Aurangabad in the cases of companies based at Kolkata from which the share premiums / application money was received in consequence to the search action u/s 132 of the Act. The survey party could serve the authorization only in the case of M/s. Brightstar Commosales Private Limited. This according

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

survey on assessee. On revenue's appeal, High Court confirmed\norder of Tribunal. The SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court holding that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by\nHigh Court.\n\n8.8 Among others, the appellant placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional Bombay High Court

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]

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs. 30.01,449/- which was declared by the assessee as unexplained. The assessee further stated that this unexplained stock has duly been added in the stock while finalizing the Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account. Thus, it is undisputed fact that there was unexplained stock of Rs.30