JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

purchase and sale of share as sham transactions and sale proceeds of shares were treated as undisclosed income under section 68, since payments were received through account payee cheques and transactions were done through recognized stock exchange, and there was no evidence that assessee had paid cash in return of receipt through cheque Tribunal rightly deleted addition holding that transactions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

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)

bogus, when the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee establish genuineness of the claim. In the case of PCIT vs. Indravadan Jain (HUF) (supra), the broker through whom, the assessee had carried out the transactions have been alleged to have been indulged in price manipulations and the SEBI had also passed an order regarding irregularities and synchronized trades carried

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)

34. If the assessee felt that cross-examining of any person was necessary for establishing its case it was incumbent upon the assessee to make such prayer before the Assessing officer during the assessment proceeding. If a party fails to avail of the opportunity to cross-examine a person at the appropriate stage in the proceeding, the said party would

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. SURYACHANDRA LALMANI DUBEY, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

10 Suryachandra Lalmani Dubey [R] ii) The M/s Shidrah Multi Trade Link has shown cash receipts of Rs.93,88,389/- from M/s Brahma Steels and shown the outstanding balance of Rs.28.32,967/- in his books of accounts. On the other hand, M/sBrahma Steels has shown outstanding balance of Rs.1,96,57,205/- in his hooks of accounts. Hence the difference

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

10. For all his services, the assessee made payment to Mr. Ajit Satam of Rs.26.55 Crores during FY 2009-10. The consideration was discharged by making cheque payments to the various parties at the direction of Mr. Ajit Satam. Subsequently, one Mr. Pramod Singh, known to Mr. Ajit Satam, would arrange to make RTGS payment into the bank account

KU. ANISHA J. THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, NASHIK

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) dated 26/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 7. The assessee appeals to grant any relief that may be due to the Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter

SMT. JAYSHREE JAYESH THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, NASHIK

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) dated 26/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 7. The assessee appeals to grant any relief that may be due to the Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter

BHAVIK JAYESH THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, NASHIK

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) dated 26/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 7. The assessee appeals to grant any relief that may be due to the Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter

JAYESH VALLABH THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, , NASHIK

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) dated 26/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 7. The assessee appeals to grant any relief that may be due to the Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter

M/S. GORDHANSINGH S RAJPUROHIT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PANVEL

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

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

bogus purchases. This is a case, where at the most, the purchase amount would have been inflated. Moreover the impugned addition of Rs.3,08,99,339/- would result in net profit of 68% which is not possible in any trading business. Therefore, following the principle laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros Vs CIT (37 ITR 271] held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Since the transaction from the assessee is genuine no addition or disallowance can be made on this account