DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, apart from the profits of Rs.3,58,69,978/- arrived at by deduction of cost of acquisition of Rs.4,94,30,022/- from the sale consideration sated in the sale deed of Rs.8,53,00,000/-. 8. The Assessing Officer also received information from the ACIT, CC, Kolhapur that during the course

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidenal of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

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)

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 in deleting the disallowance made of Rs.1,49,910/- out of agricultural income only

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

prices of Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. Ld. AO also observed that assessee has purchased the Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. through offline mode on 12.11.2012. Further, there was no response from the side of assessee to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO concluded that the long term capital gain shown

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

transferred for investment in fixed assets. Hence it is hereby concluded that the funds received by the assessee-company from the Pranav International Ltd., Dubai to the tune of Rs.1,62,84,153/- in FY 2016-17 are unexplained credit in the books of the assessee. Accordingly, the unexplained credit of Rs.1,62,84,153/- is added to the total

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

price of such\ninvestment then loss of such investment is a capital loss.\n20. At the cost of repetition, brief facts relating to this issue\nare that in order to expand its business overseas and also to\nincrease its export sales and other Revenue in the field of\nmanufacturing of high precision caging components and\nAerospace and Defence Industries

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

price of such\ninvestment then loss of such investment is a capital loss.\n\n20. At the cost of repetition, brief facts relating to this issue\nare that in order to expand its business overseas and also to\nincrease its export sales and other Revenue in the field of\nmanufacturing of high precision caging components and\nAerospace and Defence Industries

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

investment by the\nassessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik\nhas erred in confirming the same.\n6.\nAdditions made without any evidence should be deleted.\n7.\nThe Assessment Order under section 143(3) dated 28/12/2016 passed by\nthe Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income\nTax(Appeals)-1. Nashik has erred

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)

investment by the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 6. Additions made without any evidence should be deleted. 7. The Assessment Order under section 143(3) dated 28/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1. Nashik has erred

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

investment in the\nshares of M/s PFIL. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee\nthat the transactions done were genuine and backed by documentation such as D-\nMAT account, contract notes, bank accounts etc. Taking into considerations all the\nfacts and reply of the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing\nOfficer held the LTCG claimed

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

investment in the\nshares of M/s PFIL. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee\nthat the transactions done were genuine and backed by documentation such as D-\nMAT account, contract notes, bank accounts etc. Taking into considerations all the\nfacts and reply of the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing\nOfficer held the LTCG claimed

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

investment in the\nshares of M/s PFIL. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee\nthat the transactions done were genuine and backed by documentation such as D-\nMAT account, contract notes, bank accounts etc. Taking into considerations all the\nfacts and reply of the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing\nOfficer held the LTCG claimed

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

unexplained receipts/money uls 69A of the Act is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed. 4. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. She vehemently argued referring to the paper book running into 144 pages and stated that the assessee has entered into the agreement for purchase of agricultural land from Shri

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Investments Ltd.\n12\nBhavana Lalit Jain\n1120/2024\nITAT-Mumbai\nLFC Securities P Ltd.\n13\nSecurities Appellant Tribunal\nOrder (SEBI FINAL ORDER)\n28265/23-\n24\nSEBI\nAppellate\nTribunal\n14\nSEBI ORDER\nRoongta\nIndravadan Jain (HUF)\n72 of 2021\nMishka Finance and Trading\nLimited\n15\n454/2018\nHigh court-\nMumbai\nRFL\n8.\nWe have heard rival contentions and perused the records\nplaced before

SONAL ASHISH SHAH,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2541/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15

unexplained cash credit’ made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A). 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the detailed paper book running into 711 pages and also referring to the documents to prove that the Equity shares of the alleged company

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

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also observed that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of rebuttal of presumption raised u/s 292C of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the findings of the Assessing Officer were confirmed, rejecting the argument of the assessee that they were dumb documents and by holding

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

transferring the jurisdiction of the person, the transferee Income-\ntax Authorities as mentioned in section 116 of the Act shall exercise all\nthe powers and perform the functions as stipulated in the Act in respect\nof all the proceedings which may be commenced after the date of such\norder in respect of any year and such power includes passing