SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

69C on allegation of\ncommission paid by the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income\nTax(Appeals)-1, Nashik.\n5.\nThe learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making\naddition of an amount of Rs.15,000/- under section 69 on allegation of non-\nsubmission of proof as regards purchase of initial investment by the\nassessee

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)

69C on allegation of commission paid by the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik. 5. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making addition of an amount of Rs.15,000/- under section 69 on allegation of non- submission of proof as regards purchase of initial investment by the assessee

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

transferring in his name\nagainst the alleged sum given as advance.\n7. The ld.CIT(A) called for the remand report from the\nAssessing Officer on various issues mainly regarding the proper\nsanction u/s.151 of the Act, supply of correct reasons recorded,\nDIN not mentioned on the body of the assessment order and\nafter duly considering the comments of the assessee

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

price was paid by cheque and respondent's bank account has\nbeen debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent's Demat\naccount where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one\nyear the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the\nKolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said

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

price was paid by cheque and respondent's bank account has\nbeen debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent's Demat\naccount where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one\nyear the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the\nKolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said

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

price was paid by cheque and respondent's bank account has\nbeen debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent's Demat\naccount where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one\nyear the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the\nKolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

transfer of PAN jurisdiction. In the absence of any submission in support of her contentions raised in the grounds, the appellant's claim cannot be ascertained. Hence, the Ground No. 4 raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 7. From going through the above finding of ld.CIT(A), I find that the same needs no interference and observe that a valid

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

69C RWS 115BBE of the Act though the assessee had admitted the above said unexplained expenditure in his statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, which has an evidentiary value until not proven otherwise along with supporting documentary evidences. 11. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred

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

price is more than the stamp duty value of the property, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no case for making addition u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC is set aside on this issue and the grounds of appeal No.7

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

prices. At many places only figures have been mentioned without noting whether these are amounts received or paid. I have recorded my statement for such amounts purely on my memory and so they could be vise-versa also. The dates recorded in the Diaries may differ with the dates recorded in the regular books of accounts or the dates