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

133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions\nrevealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long\n\n16\nITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & Ors\nCO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025\nterm capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to\nthe statements of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain,\nDirector of PFLIL

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

133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions\nrevealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long\n\nterm capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to\nthe statements of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain,\nDirector of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh Jain he submitted that

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

133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions\nrevealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long\nterm capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to\nthe statements of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain,\nDirector of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh Jain he submitted that

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

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

133A\nand section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the DDIT(Inv.)\nKolkata.\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating dated\n30.03.2015. Shri Anil Kumar Khemka confessed to facilitating\naccommodation entries through the manipulation of scraps,\nincluding MISHKAFIN and outlined the modus operandi

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

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

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

133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions revealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 term capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to the staternents of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh Jain

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

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

133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions revealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 term capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to the staternents of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh Jain

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

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

133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions revealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 term capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to the staternents of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh Jain

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

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

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.

133A of IT Act on assessee on 02-03-2017. During the Demonetization period, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,89,02,000/- into OD A/c No.4237000100128201 with Karnataka Bank Ltd and Rs.80,00,000/- in the bank accounts of wife Smita with Karnataka Bank Ltd A/c No.4237000600108601 and Rs.22,20,000/- in bank account of wife with Canara

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.

133A of IT Act on assessee on 02-03-2017. During the Demonetization period, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,89,02,000/- into OD A/c No.4237000100128201 with Karnataka Bank Ltd and Rs.80,00,000/- in the bank accounts of wife Smita with Karnataka Bank Ltd A/c No.4237000600108601 and Rs.22,20,000/- in bank account of wife with Canara

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