SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchase bills issued by the suppliers and the cheque payments made So however, there is no other evidence, namely, GRNs octroi receipts, delivery challans, etc which would show that the supplies were indeed made. Therefore, in such a situation, can the absence of cross-examination be fatal to the addition in question?, especially when at the initial stage, an opportunity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

bogus purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on the total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-. The order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

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

bogus purchases of\nRs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order\nof the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on\nthe total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-.\nThe order

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

natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its Proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. Therefore, the failure to give reasons, reasons which are substantial and not an apology for reasons, is now treated as necessary requirement for compliance with the principle

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

bogus LTCG.\n\n8. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re-assessment proceedings on\nthe ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice since the\nassessee was not provided with an opportunity of cross-examination of three\nparties whose statements were relied upon by the Assessing Officer. The relevant\nobservations

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

bogus LTCG.\n\n8. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re-assessment proceedings on\nthe ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice since the\nassessee was not provided with an opportunity of cross-examination of three\nparties whose statements were relied upon by the Assessing Officer. The relevant\nobservations

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

bogus LTCG.\n\n8. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re-assessment proceedings on\nthe ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice since the\nassessee was not provided with an opportunity of cross-examination of three\nparties whose statements were relied upon by the Assessing Officer. The relevant\nobservations

RAKESH H MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

natural justice. (Emphasis supplied) Regarding the claim of supporting documents furnished during the assessment proceedings, it is seen that the appellant had furnished following documents:- i Copy of ledger account for sales made during the year. ii. Copy of ledger account for purchases made during the year. iii. Copy of ledger account of BVG India Limited. Rakesh H. Mehta

RAKESH H MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

natural justice. (Emphasis supplied) Regarding the claim of supporting documents furnished during the assessment proceedings, it is seen that the appellant had furnished following documents:- i Copy of ledger account for sales made during the year. ii. Copy of ledger account for purchases made during the year. iii. Copy of ledger account of BVG India Limited. Rakesh H. Mehta

RAKESH H MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

natural justice. (Emphasis supplied) Regarding the claim of supporting documents furnished during the assessment proceedings, it is seen that the appellant had furnished following documents:- i Copy of ledger account for sales made during the year. ii. Copy of ledger account for purchases made during the year. iii. Copy of ledger account of BVG India Limited. Rakesh H. Mehta

HETAL RAKESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural Justice. (Emphasis supplied) 12. Regarding the claim of supporting documents furnished during the assessment proceedings, it is seen that the appellant had furnished following documents:- i. Copy of ledger account for sales made during the year ii. Copy of ledger account for purchases made during the year. iii. Copy of ledger account of BVG India Limited. iv. Copies

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

purchases and Rs. 2,55,498/- as alleged suppressed sales, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence, accounting principles, and provisions of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. GROUND NO. 4: GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly violated the principles of natural Justice by deliberately not intimating the defect in Form

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

purchases and Rs. 2,55,498/- as alleged suppressed sales, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence, accounting principles, and provisions of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. GROUND NO. 4: GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly violated the principles of natural Justice by deliberately not intimating the defect in Form

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

purchases and expenses were pending to be received even till 31.03.2010, the provisioning made was not accepted and added back to the income, After making the above two additions, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.30,94,50,800/-.\n6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee along with making

SHRI NIRMAL SHARAD MUTHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon. & Nirmal Sharad Mutha, Vs Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, Plot No.83, Manik Nagar, Ahmednagar. Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar. Pan: Afvpm 3572 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune, Dated 03.03.2020 For A.Y.2012-13 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

purchases and sales and the assessee is also among one of 4 Nirmal Sharad Mutha such beneficiaries, however, Shri Ritesh Siroya retracted from his statement at later stage. In view thereof, the AO stated that assessee had accepted accommodation entry from M/s. Daksh Diamonds and failed in the initial onus to prove the creditworthiness of the lender i.e. M/s.Daksh Diamonds

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)

nature, the same are dismissed. 15. Grounds of appeal No.1 to 6 relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of Rs.1,02,13,881/-. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

natural justice because of\nwhich the assessee was adversely affected\nCIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court)\nINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 456 OF 200 7 7th September\n2011\nLong-term capital gains on sale of \"penny\" stocks cannot be\ntreated as bogus & unexplained cash credit if the\ndocumentation is in order & there is no allegation of\nmanipulation by SEBI

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

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

bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that right

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

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

bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that right