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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

35,36,451 Total 17,49,83,488 3,14,97,032 20,64,80,520 19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, has made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed after the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Although

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RATHI STEEL AND METAL PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Rathi Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.F12, Addl Midc Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan : Aabcr5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

II, Vs. Jalna – 431203 PAN : AABCR5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Anand Partani Department by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT Date of hearing : 01-04-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 11.03.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune

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

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

35,36,451\nTotal\n17,49,83,488\n3,14,97,032\n20,64,80,520\n19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order,\nhas made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the\nAssessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed after the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A). Although

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

ii) Secondly, but most importantly, I don't agree with the AO's findings because of the following reasons. - "As stated by the appellant, it is true that the AO has not proved any of the ingredients required to call a particular transaction as bogus/paper purchase. A bogus/paper purchase would comprise of the following elements essentially: - a) Issuing bogus bills/fake

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

35. The Revenue is in appeal before us being aggrieved by that part of order of the ld. CIT(A) which is against the Revenue. 36. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal :- ―1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the LdCIT(A) is justified in considering Performance Guarantee and Corporate Guarantee separately ? 2) Whether

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

35. The Revenue is in appeal before us being aggrieved by that part of order of the ld. CIT(A) which is against the Revenue. 36. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal :- ―1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the LdCIT(A) is justified in considering Performance Guarantee and Corporate Guarantee separately ? 2) Whether

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

35 to 37 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the letter addressed by the DDIT (nv), New Delhi to the DCIT (Exemption), Pune regarding certain clarification with respect to PAN and name of the shell entity not mentioned in Enqury Report in the case of Joginder Pal Gupta

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

35 to 37 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the letter addressed by the DDIT (nv), New Delhi to the DCIT (Exemption), Pune regarding certain clarification with respect to PAN and name of the shell entity not mentioned in Enqury Report in the case of Joginder Pal Gupta

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)

35. Plea of violation of natural justice taken at the appellate stage appears to be belated and clearly an afterthought. It appears that no prejudice had been suffered by the appellant assessee in the manner the proceeding was conducted by the Assessing Officer and the assessee was not aggrieved at that stage. Only when the assessment order went against

HARSHAD HIMMATLAL RUPANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), PUNE

In the result the ground number 3 is allowed for Statistical

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.920/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Adopr6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Bogus Sundry Creditors have been mentioned by the Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-5(3), Pune. 4.2) The ITO also made addition of Rs.12,97,808/- on account of difference in TDS credit. 4.3) Aggrieved by the Assessment Order the Assessee filed appeal before Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal).Assessee also filed certain documents before CIT(A) who called for Remand

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

purchased the shares of M/s. S.V. Electricals Ltd. / NITSL with the sole intention of earning profit from the penny stock and therefore, such transaction is clearly ‘adventure in the nature of trade’. He accordingly made addition of Rs.1,52,62,200/- u/s 68 of the Act treating the long term capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee

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

ii) Bank statement reflecting consideration received on sale of shares iii) Demat account statement for the period of purchase and sale of shares iv) Share allotment letter on allotment of shares v) Contact notes of sale of shares 16 20. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not consider the various documents including bank statements, share allotment letter

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

1) of the Act which expressly restricts the computation of undisclosed income to the evidence found during search, the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can form a basis for a block assessment only if such statement relates to any incriminating evidence of undisclosed income unearthed during search and cannot be the sole basis for making

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

ii) Shri P Amresh Kumar, Managing Director of M/s.\nPFL Infotech Ltd. dated 05/06/2017 and that of (iii) Sri Abhinandan Jain dated\n12/10/2017. The assessing officer has even reproduced the relevant portion of Sri\nNaresh Jain's statement in the assessment order. It is also undisputed that the\nappellant has requested for cross examination of third parties at para

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

ii) Shri P Amresh Kumar, Managing Director of M/s.\nPFL Infotech Ltd. dated 05/06/2017 and that of (iii) Sri Abhinandan Jain dated\n12/10/2017. The assessing officer has even reproduced the relevant portion of Sri\nNaresh Jain's statement in the assessment order. It is also undisputed that the\nappellant has requested for cross examination of third parties at para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

bogus liabilites created out of thin air by the assessee of which he has no documentary evidences. The assessee is making concoted afterthought stories which are not supported by any rationale or evidences. Therefore, an amount of Rs.19,72,000/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee being cessation of liability under the provisions

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

bogus liabilites created out of thin air by the assessee of which he has no documentary evidences. The assessee is making concoted afterthought stories which are not supported by any rationale or evidences. Therefore, an amount of Rs.19,72,000/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee being cessation of liability under the provisions

R. K. WINES,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1% is also collected\non the said purchases, which fact is duly reflected by form 26AS of the\nappellant. It is further to be noted that the Id AO has not disputed the\nsales of the appellant. It is not the case of the Id AO that sales of the\nappellant are inflated due to bogus purchases from the disputed