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

purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist reasons to believe that the income arising out of sale of shares of penny\nstock company PLFIL have escaped assessment म\n\n7. Applicability of the provision of section 147/151

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

purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist reasons to believe that the income arising out of sale of shares of penny\nstock company PLFIL have escaped assessment\n\n7. Applicability of the provision of section 147/151 to the facts

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)

section 68, therefore the addition of alleged commission payment is also deleted. This ground of assessee is also allowed." 7. Considering the aforesaid observations and findings recorded by the Tribunal, we notice that the transaction of the assessee was doubted by the authority on the basis of the report of the Investigating Wing, Kolkata. It is pertinent to note

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

section 68 is deleted. Considering the fact\nthat I have accepted the LTCG by deleting the addition made under\nsection 68, therefore the addition of alleged commission payment is\nalso deleted. This ground of assessee is also allowed.\"\n7. Considering the aforesaid observations and findings recorded by the\nTribunal, we notice that the transaction of the assessee was doubted

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

bogus or they failed to give any reasonable explanation. During the course of investigation, the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata recorded the statement of Shri Anil Kumar Khemka, one of the operators who admitted that he was providing accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gain in the shares of Pine Animation Ltd. The AO noticed that the share

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

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

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

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

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

bogus LTCG. He has also admitted that he has given accommodation entries in various scripts including PS IT. 13. Further, the Investigation Wing at Aurangabad has informed that during the course of investigation on 02/09/2015, in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, the .assessee has discussed the income received from sale of spares

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

AGARWAL GROUP CORPORATE HOLDING P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

bogus unsecured loans; ₹ 1,14,742/- as non- genuine interest expenses and had also failed to explain the source of cash payment of ₹ 15 lakhs, where the assessee’s share was ₹ 7.50 lakhs on page No.10 of Bundle No.1, seized from the office of CIIL and page 30 of Bundle No.1 seized from the office of M/s. Veena Industries

BRIJENDRA NATH AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Brijendra Nath Agarwal, Mzsk & Associates, Chartered Accountants Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aawpa9005D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 2(1), Pune

bogus unsecured loans; ₹ 1,14,742/- as non- genuine interest expenses and had also failed to explain the source of cash payment of ₹ 15 lakhs, where the assessee’s share was ₹ 7.50 lakhs on page No.10 of Bundle No.1, seized from the office of CIIL and page 30 of Bundle No.1 seized from the office of M/s. Veena Industries

AKSHAY A. CHOURE,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (1),, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1168/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

bogus long term capital gain through accommodation entries. He also admitted 4 Akshay A. Choure of have given accommodation entries in various scrips including PAL. The AO has also referred to statements of Sh. Praveen Kumar Agrawal recorded on 10-02-2015, Sh. Soumen Choudhary recorded on 10-02-2015, Sh. Anil Kedia recorded

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

purchase of property. Therefore, he submits that the orders of the lower authorities are very reasoned and speaking based on the proper appreciation of material on record requires no interference. 18. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Ground of appeal no.(a), (b) and (c) challenges the addition of unsecured loans of Rs.13

MR. GAURAV RAJENDRA MALU,JAYSINGPUR vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

purchase of shares by the assessee was itself a sham transaction and therefore the whole of the transaction resulting into long term capital gain is a sham transaction. The scrip was used for providing accommodation entry. The fact has been duly confirmed by the SEBI vide its order dated 05/06/2020. This aspect of the case has not been verified

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

150/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B by making-(i) addition of\nRs.6,03,310/- on account of disallowance of exemption claimed by the\nassessee u/s 10(5) and 10(10C) of the Act and (ii) addition of Rs.5,30,072/-\non account of amount received by the assessee from Hospira Healthcare\nIndia Private Limited Sr. Executive Superannuation Scheme, for which