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

bogus purchases amounting to Rs.87,64,74,079/-is being made u/s 37(1) of the Act, and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 270A(9) of misreporting of income is being initiated. Section 37. General-(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 68 and 69C of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, when the appellate authority has categorically found that the alleged purchases are bogus in nature, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5%. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 68 and 69C of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, when the appellate authority has categorically found that the alleged purchases are bogus in nature, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5%. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds

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 profit for the year under consideration. Based on this finding that AO has formed belief that income to the tune of Rs. 36,56,250/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

purchase of spare part. Hence in absence of any documentary evidence, the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. Accordingly, payment made to Franco Itely through journal entry is treated as bogus and the same is added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act are initiated separately. [Addition

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

purchase of self occupied house property, copy of loan account statement and the certificate from the bank regarding the payment of interest and principal. Further, the Assessing Officer also held that the assessee cannot make a new claim in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) although held that

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)

36,791/- made in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.09.2021 on account of alleged commission income @1% of sales from providing alleged accommodation entry to BVG India Limited disregarding the materials / evidence placed on record in support of the genuineness of transactions and without appreciating

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

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

bogus. If the purchase and sale of shares are reflected\nin the Assessee's DMAT account, yet they are termed as arranged transactions\nand projected to be real, then, such conclusion which has been reached by the\nCommissioner and the Assessing Officer required a deeper scrutiny. It was also\nrevealed during the course of inquiry by the Assessing Officer that

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

bogus. If the purchase and sale of shares are reflected\nin the Assessee's DMAT account, yet they are termed as arranged transactions\nand projected to be real, then, such conclusion which has been reached by the\nCommissioner and the Assessing Officer required a deeper scrutiny. It was also\nrevealed during the course of inquiry by the Assessing Officer that

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

bogus. If the purchase and sale of shares are reflected\nin the Assessee's DMAT account, yet they are termed as arranged transactions\nand projected to be real, then, such conclusion which has been reached by the\nCommissioner and the Assessing Officer required a deeper scrutiny. It was also\nrevealed during the course of inquiry by the Assessing Officer that

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

purchase and sale of share as sham transactions and sale proceeds of shares were treated as undisclosed income under section 68, since payments were received through account payee cheques and transactions were done through recognized stock exchange, and there was no evidence that assessee had paid cash in return of receipt through cheque Tribunal rightly deleted addition holding that transactions

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)

section 68, therefore the addition of alleged commission payment is also deleted. This ground of assessee is also allowed." 7. Considering the aforesaid observations and findings recorded by the Tribunal, we notice that the transaction of the assessee was doubted by the authority on the basis of the report of the Investigating Wing, Kolkata. It is pertinent to note

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

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

section 68 is deleted. Considering the fact\nthat I have accepted the LTCG by deleting the addition made under\nsection 68, therefore the addition of alleged commission payment is\nalso deleted. This ground of assessee is also allowed.\"\n7. Considering the aforesaid observations and findings recorded by the\nTribunal, we notice that the transaction of the assessee was doubted

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

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

purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

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

purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very