SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal assertions

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (4),, NASHIK vs. JITENDRA RAVINDRA MALPURE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

253/-. The Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. In response to initiation of penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted reply, which was not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer and he levied penalty vide order dated 22.03.2018 by observing that

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 01.04.2005. The shares on which this LTCG is shown are usually the penny stocks whose prices can be easily manipulated 6 Sangeeta B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 by few unscrupulous brokers in connivance with entry operators, to provide the beneficiaries with tax exempt long-term capital gain/short

DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

section 41(1) of the Act. The very fact that the assessee itself had offered to tax the credits in the succeeding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 goes to prove that the sundry creditors were fictitious which means that the purchases shown to have been made from these parties is either bogus or these sundry creditors may be fictitious

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

section 41(1) of the Act. The very fact that the assessee itself had offered to tax the credits in the succeeding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 goes to prove that the sundry creditors were fictitious which means that the purchases shown to have been made from these parties is either bogus or these sundry creditors may be fictitious

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. Thus there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the AO. There was independent application of mind on the part of the AO. Further reliance is placed upon clause (b) of explanation

VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

253(1)(a) of the Act on following grounds; “1. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 14 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.956/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2009-10 2. On the basis of facts

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

bogus and non- genuine due to non compliance of notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued to various sub-contractor. Further, during the remand report proceeding, the Ld. Assessing officer has proposed the addition of Rs.1,25,51,607/-instead of addition of Rs.4,41,21,079/- as earlier made after due verification, details

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.

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 01.04.2005. The shares on which this LTCG is shown are usually the penny stocks whose prices can be easily manipulated by ITA No.78/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, (A) few unscrupulous brokers in connivance with entry operators, to provide the beneficiaries with

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

253, 254 & 259/ PNJ/2013 (ITAT- Panaji) In this case the Hon'ble ITAT held that when the transactions were recorded in the books of accounts and were surrendered and offered to tax at the time of survey, in absence of any details, the penalty could not be levied. 4.6 During the Appellate proceedings on 06.08.2019, the appellant further filed