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

HETAL RAKESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases and consequent income arising from these transactions had already been fully disclosed and accounted for in the appellant's income tax return. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the failure of the Assessing Officer to provide the appellant with a copy

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

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

bogus long term capital gain availed through a penny stock company namely Greencrest Financial Services Private Limited. Ld. AO observed that the assessee has also dealt in the very same scrip and has earned capital gain thereon. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued followed by validly serving of notices u/s.143(2) of the Act. Assessee raised objections against

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

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. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

purchaser, therefore, the transaction was not undertaken at arm‟s length. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (iv) The Hon‟ble High Court of Republic Singapore had not determined the actual sale consideration and the whole transaction is premeditate, is dubious transactions entered into with the intention of claiming loss for availing the benefit of losses and proceeded to apply the ratio

M/S KUTE SONS DAIRYS LTD.,SATARA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.410/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kute Sons Dairys Ltd., Vs. Pcit-3, Pune. S.No.406/407, At Nimbhore, Post Surwadi, Taluka Phaltan, Satara- 415523. Pan : Aabck0391C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. K. Rander Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S.263 & Passing The Order Without Proper Jurisdiction. Appellant Prays To Declare Proceedings & Order Bad In Law.

purchased which is accepted by Assessing Officer after full application of mind. Therefore, appellant prays to cancel the Pr. CIT’s Order on the issue. 4. Pr. Commissioner has erred in setting aside case for applicability of Section 41(1). Appellant prays to cancel the Pr. CIT’s Order on the issue. 5. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, modify

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

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

bogus. Without establishing the letter as\nnon- genuine or without examining the sanctity of the payment made simply\ninvoking the provisions of the Act for making addition is not appropriate for a\nquasi-judicial authority. The revenue should have verified and examined the\ngenuneness of the letter which was produced by the assessee wherein the\nemployer had stated that