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

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "132", "133(6)", "131", "147", "143(3)", "69A", "271AAC(1)", "28", "69", "69C" ], "issues": "Whether additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RATHI STEEL AND METAL PVT. LTD, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Rathi Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.F12, Addl Midc Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan : Aabcr5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

section 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 are initiated herewith. (Addition Rs.17,42,770/-)” 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions made by the Assessing Officer. So far as the addition on account of bogus purchases is concerned, he deleted the same by observing as under: 8 “5.2 I have gone through the submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SATARA CIRCLE,SATARA, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only commission for providing such false entries in its books of account. He, therefore, added an amount of Rs.3,60,11,804/- being the commission @ 2% on such bogus sales amounting to Rs.1,80,05,90,205/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Before

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

purchases and expenses and also based on the information collected from the assessee observed that the assessee company has arranged bogus expenses of Rs.24.24 crore which inter alia included bogus commission expenses also. When the assessee was confronted, it was submitted that these bogus losses have been arranged to cover up the inflated project value invoiced to TIL by Rs.26.55

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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

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

131 were unserved with remark that addressees were not available, and, moreover, those shareholders were first time assessees and were not earning enough income to make 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

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)

purchase of initial 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

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, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

131 taxmanın.com 52/283 Taxman 462/439 ITR 168.\n6. We have examined the reasons recorded annexed to the Petition that are\nevidently premised on 'seen from the assessment records'. The Assessing Officer\n(AO) records that the assessee claimed to have purchased shares of the penny\nstock scrips for a total of Rs.33,09,976 and sold for a consideration

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

purchase of initial 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

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

bogus purchases over and above rate of gross profit of 4.63 per cent declared by assessee and passed assessment order, since assessee had produced all necessary details of purchase, sales, audited books of account, quantity details and there was no discrepancy between purchase and sales declined, Assessing Officer had taken one possible view out of two assumption and thus

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

131 taxmanın.com 52/283 Taxman 462/439 ITR 168. 6. We have examined the reasons recorded annexed to the Petition that are evidently premised on 'seen from the assessment records’. The Assessing Officer (AO) records that the assessee claimed to have purchased shares of the penny stock scrips for a total of Rs.33,09,976 and sold for a consideration

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

131 taxmanın.com 52/283 Taxman 462/439 ITR 168. 6. We have examined the reasons recorded annexed to the Petition that are evidently premised on 'seen from the assessment records’. The Assessing Officer (AO) records that the assessee claimed to have purchased shares of the penny stock scrips for a total of Rs.33,09,976 and sold for a consideration

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

131 taxmanın.com 52/283 Taxman 462/439 ITR 168. 6. We have examined the reasons recorded annexed to the Petition that are evidently premised on 'seen from the assessment records’. The Assessing Officer (AO) records that the assessee claimed to have purchased shares of the penny stock scrips for a total of Rs.33,09,976 and sold for a consideration

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

131 taxmanın.com 52/283 Taxman 462/439 ITR 168. 6. We have examined the reasons recorded annexed to the Petition that are evidently premised on 'seen from the assessment records’. The Assessing Officer (AO) records that the assessee claimed to have purchased shares of the penny stock scrips for a total of Rs.33,09,976 and sold for a consideration

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

131 taxmanın.com 52/283 Taxman 462/439 ITR 168. 6. We have examined the reasons recorded annexed to the Petition that are evidently premised on 'seen from the assessment records’. The Assessing Officer (AO) records that the assessee claimed to have purchased shares of the penny stock scrips for a total of Rs.33,09,976 and sold for a consideration