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

purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore, in our view, rightly concluded that\nthere was no merit in the appeal.\"\n\nThe facts of the case at hand are similar

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

purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore, in our view, rightly concluded that\nthere was no merit in the appeal.\"\n\nThe facts of the case at hand are similar

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

bogus expenditure in the garb of interest expenses. 10. We are of the view that it is not necessary that the expenditure incurred must have been obligatory; it is enough to show that the money was expended not necessary with a view to an immediate benefit to the assessee but voluntarily and on the ground of necessity and in order

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

56 (Bombay) various shareholders, in view of fact that summons served to shareholders under section 131 were unserved with remark that addressees were not available, and, moreover, those shareholders were first time assessees and were not earning enough income to make deposits in question, impugned addition made by AO under sec. 68, was to be confirmed 9 J. J. Development

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

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

56 (Calcutta), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has discussed in detail one such action taken by Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) at Kolkatta which identified 84 BSE listed companies which were used for tax evasion using the penny stock rigging modus operandi. The Hon’ble High Court has noted that

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

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

56 (Calcutta), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has discussed in detail one such action taken by Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) at Kolkatta which identified 84 BSE listed companies which were used for tax evasion using the penny stock rigging modus operandi. The Hon’ble High Court has noted that

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

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

56 (Calcutta), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has discussed in detail one such action taken by Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) at Kolkatta which identified 84 BSE listed companies which were used for tax evasion using the penny stock rigging modus operandi. The Hon’ble High Court has noted that

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’).

56,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS 2 and statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee

SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

56 (Calcutta) wherein after examining the legal position on this issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has held as under. 58. Therefore, the assessees have to specifically point out as to how they were prejudiced on account of non-furnishing of the investigation report in its entirety, failure to produce the persons from whom the statements were recorded

SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

56 (Calcutta) wherein after examining the legal position on this issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has held as under. 58. Therefore, the assessees have to specifically point out as to how they were prejudiced on account of non-furnishing of the investigation report in its entirety, failure to produce the persons from whom the statements were recorded

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

VIDYARTHI VIKAS PRATISHTHAN JALGAON,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Assessment Unit, Income Jalgaon, V Tax Department(Nfac) Gat No.148, Yashwant Nagar, S Ramanand Nagar, Maharashtra – 425001. Pan: Aaatv6624R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishnan – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Passed On 20.09.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before Him By The Assessee & In Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A]

Purchase bills are attached herewith] Rs.46,89,549/- Less: Closing Stock Rs.5,61,225/- Total Rs.1,08,75,308/- 3. Assessee also claimed during the assessment proceedings, which is mentioned in the assessment order that assessee could not file Return of Income for the year in ITR-7 due to some technical reasons, as a result, assessee filed Return

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

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJIKARANJI, KOLHAPUR vs. SPLICE BIOTECH PVT LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

bogus long term capital gains/providing accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called upon to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions of purchase and sale of shares in the light of his findings. The Assessing Officer also furnished the copies of the statement recorded from entry providers

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

purchased and sold was not owned by the appellant company but by M/s Beeline Impex Pvt. Ltd & Pearl Cosmetics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. the said land was having certain legal issues and encumbrances due to which the development of the property was not possible. It is far-fetched that a real estate business entity would give/take an advance of crores

ARCHANA RAJENDRA MALU,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

56 (Calcutta), the order of the ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to whether or not the claim for exemption of capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act is genuine. The material facts to be noted herein are as under : During