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

2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence

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

2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence

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

2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence

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

2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence

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

2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence

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

2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence

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

2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence

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

2) All documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.’ When we read sub-section (4) of section 132 in juxtaposition to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it clearly transpires that the statement made by an assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act can be construed as an oral evidence

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. JITENDRA RAVINDRA MALPURE,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

253/- for A.Y.2010-11 on account of alleged bogus purchases from Hawala dealers/parties. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified in deleting the purchases treated as bogus when the appellant had not been able to produce the certain parties from whom purchases were made when letters sent

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

2 Jitendra Ravindra Malpure Assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of Trading in electrical goods. In the instant case, assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed on 25.03.2015 assessing total income at Rs.26,03,190/-, wherein he made an addition

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 2

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

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

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

2), Nagpur in ITA No. 61/Nag/2013 wherein the Hon‟ble ITAT Nagpur decided in favour of the department. Subsequently, Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also decided the appeal in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain, L/HShantidevi Bimalchand Jain Vs PCIT in ITA No. 18 of 2017 in favour of the Revenue, by observing inter-alia asunder: “The assessee had purchased

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

purchases are bogus or sundry creditors are fictitious. In the absence of finding on the very nature of sundry creditors appearing, it is impossible to decide as to under what provisions of the Act these items can be brought to tax. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issue in proper

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

purchases are bogus or sundry creditors are fictitious. In the absence of finding on the very nature of sundry creditors appearing, it is impossible to decide as to under what provisions of the Act these items can be brought to tax. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issue in proper