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 and bogus sales as circular trading for inflation of turnover. However, it is an admitted fact that the assessee in the instant case is maintaining regular books of account which were duly audited and the Assessing Officer has not rejected such audited books of account and accepted the various items which conform part of Profit and Loss Account including

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 68 and 69C of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, when the appellate authority has categorically found that the alleged purchases are bogus in nature, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5%. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 68 and 69C of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, when the appellate authority has categorically found that the alleged purchases are bogus in nature, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5%. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds

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

24,36,33,533 ₹1,68,362 0.069% M/s. Anuradha Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. ₹7,81,80,000 ₹3,16,000 0.4% M/s. Ferrum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ₹9,89,98,584 ₹10,98,357 1.1% M/s. Accurate Metal Corporation ₹(-)3,35,765 NA M/s. Jasonath NO DATA Bright Steel Ltd. (g) The assessment order of M/s Sharp King Trading

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holds significant evidentiary value and should not have been dismissed merely due to the absence of cross-examination. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case laws relied upon

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holds significant evidentiary value and should not have been dismissed merely due to the absence of cross-examination. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case laws relied upon

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

bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view

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

bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view

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

bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view

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)

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 36,56,250/- and suppressed the profit for the year under consideration. Based on this finding that AO has formed belief that income to the tune of Rs. 36,56,250/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147.It can seen from above reason recorded by the AO that

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

SHIV SHRADDHA DEVELOPER,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -3 KALYAN , KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchases from the said parties were bogus and made addition as unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 3. On appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition to the extent of Rs.82,24

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

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

24. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Nilesh Jain (HUF), 163 taxmann.com 229 dated 30-04-2024, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee purchased shares of a company listed on Bombay Stock Exchange

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

24(3)(1), ITA No. 1596/1597/Mum/2016 dt. 20/09/2017.  Shri Hiralal Chunilal Jain V/s ITO Ward 14(1)(4), ITA No. 4547/1275/Mum/2014 dt. 01/01/2016.  M/s Ramesh Kumar & Co. v/s ACIT Ward 21(1), ITA No. 2959/Mum/2014 dt. 28/11/2014.  Shri Pranhat Gupta v/s ITO, ITAT Mumbai dt. 09/03/2018.  M/s Paras Organic Pvt Ltd v/s DCIT 10(2), ITA no. 2369/Mum/2014 dt 26/02/2016

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

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

24. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hitendra C. Ghadia Vs. DCIT reported in TS-189-ITAT-2023 (Mumbai), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of his share dealing transactions and in view of fact that entire

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

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

24. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hitendra C. Ghadia Vs. DCIT reported in TS-189-ITAT-2023 (Mumbai), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of his share dealing transactions and in view of fact that entire

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

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

24. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hitendra C. Ghadia Vs. DCIT reported in TS-189-ITAT-2023 (Mumbai), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of his share dealing transactions and in view of fact that entire