JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

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

cash deposits made in these accounts are subsequently transferred to bank accounts of shell entities. The funds are subsequently being remitted abroad by these shell entities for prima facie bogus imports etc. Accordingly, even as per the report of the Investigation Wing, Renukamata Society had roped in various individuals of meagre means to open bank accounts in their names

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , LATUR vs. VIMAL JAYDEV ARYA, LATUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

cash deposits made in these accounts are subsequently transferred to bank accounts of shell entities. The funds are subsequently being remitted abroad by these shell entities for prima facie bogus imports etc. Accordingly, even as per the report of the Investigation Wing, Renukamata Society had roped in various individuals of meagre means to open bank accounts in their names

SMITA MANOJ PATANE,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO 2(1) KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Diwakar Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), 339/21/22/23, Vasant Kolhapur. Sahawas, Wing F-3, Shahupuri, Karveer- 416003. Pan : Aippp3853K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.711/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Samita Manoj Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Shop No.1 653/A, Kusum Kolhapur. Apartment, 2Nd Lane, Shahupuri- 416001. Pan : Amypp8375M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By Two Difference Assessees Are Directed Against The Different Order Dated 16.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) & Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 (In The Case Of Smita Manoj Patane) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.437/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

deposited cash of Rs.1,90,00,000/- in his bank account With Karnataka Bank Ltd and Rs.80,00,000/- in the bank a/c of his wife Smita with Karnataka Bank Ltd and sent RTGS to Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. against bogus sales bill issued by said company. The survey party also impounded the sales and purchase

MANOJ DIWAKAR PATANE,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1) KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Diwakar Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), 339/21/22/23, Vasant Kolhapur. Sahawas, Wing F-3, Shahupuri, Karveer- 416003. Pan : Aippp3853K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.711/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Samita Manoj Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Shop No.1 653/A, Kusum Kolhapur. Apartment, 2Nd Lane, Shahupuri- 416001. Pan : Amypp8375M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By Two Difference Assessees Are Directed Against The Different Order Dated 16.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) & Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 (In The Case Of Smita Manoj Patane) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.437/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

deposited cash of Rs.1,90,00,000/- in his bank account With Karnataka Bank Ltd and Rs.80,00,000/- in the bank a/c of his wife Smita with Karnataka Bank Ltd and sent RTGS to Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. against bogus sales bill issued by said company. The survey party also impounded the sales and purchase

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

bogus bills/fake invoices. b) Obtaining account payee cheques. c) Depositing cheque in the bank account of beneficiary. d) Withdrawing cash by beneficiary. e) Returning back of cash after adjustment of outgoings, if any. None of these ingredients were proved by the AO, in order to prove that the purchases

ALOK MAHESHCHANDRA AGRAWAL,JALGAON vs. DCIT - 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1736/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Alok Maheshchandra V The Dcit-1, Agarwal, S Jalgaon. Alok Agro Product 137, Bhawani Peth, Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Afypa7187D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dinar Daptary – Ca & Shri Sidhesh Mayekar – Ar Revenue By Dr. Shashank Ojha – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2016- 17 Dated 18.06.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. In This Case, Assessment Order Has Been Passed U/Sec.143(3) R.W.S 263 Of The Act, On 30.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1 On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Without Appreciating The Provisions Of Law, Statutory Schemes, Facts, Submissions, Documents & Case Laws. The Appellant Prays That The Entire Assessment Be Treated As Bad In Law.

bogus as they do not mention complete address and VAT registration number without considering the fact that the Appellant is a retailer and not all the customers would have VAT registration. The Appellant prays that the addition made u/s.68 of the Act on this account be deleted in toto. 2.7 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition

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

deposits in question, impugned addition made by AO under sec. 68, was to be confirmed 9 J. J. Development (P.) Ltd. Vs 81 Where High Court upheld Tribunal's CIT (2018) 100 taxmann.com order confirming addition under 102 (SC) section 68 in respect of share capital on ground that documents pertaining to share applicants produced by assessee did not demonstrate

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

deposit with him against the purchase and also shown as amount received through cheque. Later on sales of shares the operator recorded sale proceeds which was given through cheque at Rs 5,75,22,500. For purchasing the accommodation entries, the operator charged commission of Rs 32,24,046 and also other expenses and D-mat 15 charges

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

cash was deposited in the bank accounts of lenders before money is lent to the assessee. He also filed the profit & loss account and balance sheet of the lender companies. D. Finally, it is contended that since the loans were repaid through the banking channels after deducting the TDS on the interest, it can be concluded that the loans received

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. Thus there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the AO. There was independent application of mind on the part of the AO. Further reliance is placed upon clause (b) of explanation

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

deposited in respondent's bank\naccount. In view thereof, the CIT[A] found there was no reason to add the\ncapital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The\ntribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed\non facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange

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

deposited in respondent's bank\naccount. In view thereof, the CIT[A] found there was no reason to add the\ncapital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The\ntribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed\non facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange

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

deposited in respondent's bank\naccount. In view thereof, the CIT[A] found there was no reason to add the\ncapital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The\ntribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed\non facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange

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)

deposited in ICICI Bank. The Assessing Officer sought directions from the JCIT u/s 144A of the Act vide letter dated 26.12.2016 who gave directions which have been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer confronted the directions given by the JCIT to the assessee. 7. The Assessing Officer noted that the Investigation

VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

purchases from him, reopening notice against assessee was justified. vi) In the case of Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann. Com 58 (Gujrat), Hon‟ble Gujrat High Court held that where material recovered in search of another person indicated that assessee had received bogus share applications through accommodation entries, since assessee was beneficiary, initiation of re-opening

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

deposited in ICICI\nBank. The Assessing Officer sought directions from the JCIT u/s 144A of the Act\nvide letter dated 26.12.2016 who gave directions which have been reproduced by\nthe Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer\nconfronted the directions given by the JCIT to the assessee.\nThe Assessing Officer noted that the Investigation Wing

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

bogus long term capital gain. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and made addition of the same by observing as under: 6 7 8 9 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI vs. SACHIN SAMBHAJI THOMBARE, HATKANANGALE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

depositing the cash in savings bank account maintained by him and failed to prove the sources of investment in commodity/share transaction of Rs.49,20,87,960/-. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that where there is no requirement of maintaining the books of accounts