DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

bogus purchases of\nRs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order\nof the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on\nthe total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-.\nThe order

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 is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only commission for providing such false entries in its books of account. He, therefore, added an amount of Rs.3,60,11,804/- being the commission @ 2% on such bogus sales amounting to Rs.1,80,05,90,205/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Before

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

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

32. This issue is no longer res integra since it is covered by the Tribunal decision in assessee‟s own case (supra). Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessees‟s own case (supra), we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer/TPO for computing the ALP transactions of corporate guarantee by adopting

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

32. This issue is no longer res integra since it is covered by the Tribunal decision in assessee‟s own case (supra). Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessees‟s own case (supra), we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer/TPO for computing the ALP transactions of corporate guarantee by adopting

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

32 share broking\nentities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term\ncapital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was\ncarried out in the case of M/s PFLIL, a Hyderabad based company on which\nsurvey u/s 133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions\nrevealed that the shares

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

32 share broking\nentities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term\ncapital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was\ncarried out in the case of M/s PFLIL, a Hyderabad based company on which\nsurvey u/s 133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions\nrevealed that the shares

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 gross profit for the year under consideration. Also, The M/s Shidrah Multi Trade Link has shown cash receipts of Rs.93,88,389/- from M/s Brahma Steels and shown the outstanding balance of Rs. 28,32,967/- In his books of accounts. On the other hand, M/s Brahma

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

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

32 share broking\nentities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term\ncapital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was\ncarried out in the case of M/s PFLIL, a Hyderabad based company on which\nsurvey u/s 133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions\nrevealed that the shares

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

32 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the petitioner was 9 granted depreciation allowance on intangible assets in nature of know-how purchased by it and regular assessment order was passed under section 143(3), reopening of assessment pursuant to audit objection that such depreciation was not admissible, being

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)

32, Baranasi Ghosh Streeet and 23/1, Principal Khudiram Bose Road whose common directors were Abhiset Basu and Pradi Dey and they have purchased the shares from the assessee. He observed that during investigation it was revealed that the above mentioned companies, who purchased the shares for giving exit, were operated and managed by the entry provider Shri Anil Kumar Khemka

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Cash credit – Assessment year 2001-02 – Fact that assessees in group had purchased and sold shares of similar companies through same broker could not be a ground to hold that transactions were sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence was produced to establish genuineness of claim.” 32

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

32,530/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Later on, the case was reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 24.03.2014. The assessment was completed on 20.03.2015 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on total income of Rs.4,09,95,800/- including therein addition

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

purchase of property. Therefore, he submits that the orders of the lower authorities are very reasoned and speaking based on the proper appreciation of material on record requires no interference. 18. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Ground of appeal no.(a), (b) and (c) challenges the addition of unsecured loans of Rs.13

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

32, Baranasi Ghosh Streeet and 23/1, Principal\nKhudiram Bose Road whose common directors were Abhiset Basu and Pradi Dey\nand they have purchased the shares from the assessee. He observed that during\ninvestigation it was revealed that the above mentioned companies, who purchased\nthe shares for giving exit, were operated and managed by the entry provider Shri\nAnil Kumar Khemka

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros Vs CIT (37 ITR 271] held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Since the transaction from the assessee is genuine no addition or disallowance can be made on this account