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

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

25,52,144/- ₹6,62,168 0.07% M/s. Sharp Kind Trading ₹92,54,79,714 ₹3,05,591 0.03% M/s. Someshwar enterprise Pvt. Ltd. ₹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

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 153C renders the assessment invalid. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: 1. Sejal Jewellary Vs. Union of India [2025] 171 taxmann.com 846 (Bombay High Court) 2 Tirupati Construction Company v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 176 (Rajasthan High Court) 3 Shri Karshni Metals Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO [ITA No. 5079/DEL/2019] (Delhi Tribunal) Date of pronouncement: 27th

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 153C renders the assessment invalid. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: 1. Sejal Jewellary Vs. Union of India [2025] 171 taxmann.com 846 (Bombay High Court) 2 Tirupati Construction Company v. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 176 (Rajasthan High Court) 3 Shri Karshni Metals Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO [ITA No. 5079/DEL/2019] (Delhi Tribunal) Date of pronouncement: 27th

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

purchased shares of a company listed on Bombay Stock Exchange through a D-mat account, with payments made via banking channels and Security Transaction Tax paid, fulfilling all conditions for exemption under Section 10(38), Assessing Officer could not question genuineness of those shares or treat them as bogus to make an addition under Section 68. 25

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

25,88,312/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.97,05,682/- disbelieving the purchases made from the parties enumerated in para 4 of the assessment order based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department of Govt. of Maharashtra. The AO further observed that the appellant firm had failed to produce the parties for verification. Therefore

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

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

25% of Rs90,242/- may be deleted in full.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metals under the name and style “M/s. Shripal Steel & Alloys”. For AY 2009-10, he filed his return on 30.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.2,32,530/-. The return was processed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

purchases has been proved by corroborated by way of invoices and bank payments. The case laws relied by the appellant are found to be applicable to the facts of the case in hand and supports the appellants case. 6 8.3 Considering the fact that, the A.O has not brought on record any defect in the books of accounts maintained

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

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

Section 10(38) and treating such long term capital gain as bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that

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

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

Section 10(38) and treating such long term capital gain as bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that

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

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

Section 10(38) and treating such long term capital gain as bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that

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

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 has erred in confirming the same.\n8.\nThe Assessee appeals to grant any relief that may be due to the Assessee\nunder the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n9.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

bogus entries of loan and, therefore, the Court held that the assessee could not say that it had truly and fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment for the concerned year. 6. The second judgment relied upon by Mr. Kotangale is in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income Tax Officer-203 I.T.R. 456. In this

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. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

section 147 of\nthe Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the\ninformation received in the context of the facts on record The impugned\nnotice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on\nhis satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to\ntax has escaped assessment

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted