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

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

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

2%-3% commission from the beneficiaries on the\namount of LTCG provided. However, there were various expenses payments\nmade by me. I had to pay commission to the exit providers and various other\nexpenses Including trading loss. I had not disclosed this income in my return\nof Income. After taking in to account the abovementioned expenses I had\nearned approx

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

2%-3% commission from the beneficiaries on the\namount of LTCG provided. However, there were various expenses payments\nmade by me. I had to pay commission to the exit providers and various other\nexpenses Including trading loss.1 had not disclosed this income in my return\nof Income. After taking in to account the abovementioned expenses 1 had\nearned approx

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

2%-3% commission from the beneficiaries on the\namount of LTCG provided. However, there were various expenses payments\nmade by me. I had to pay commission to the exit providers and various other\nexpenses Including trading loss.1 had not disclosed this income in my return\nof Income. After taking in to account the abovementioned expenses 1 had\nearned approx

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

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

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

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

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

56,309 52 21 24.01.11 Jyoti Ashok Kotecha 13,600 172.10 23,40,560 21 Jyoti Ashok Kotecha 5,689 21 14.01.11 Ashok Kotecha 2,200 204.26 4,49,372 21 17.01.11 Ashok Kotecha 20,000 196.30 39,25,940 21 18.01.11 Ashok Kotecha 19,975 190.32 38,01,542 21 19.01.11 Ashok Kotecha

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

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, 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

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]

2 Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A] salaries and incurring expenditures. Assessee is not charging any fees from the patients. However, assessee is charging the patients for cost of medicines dispensed. Thus, assessee’s income is mainly from cost of medicines, which is Rs.78,50,390/-. In addition to this, assessee has received donation of Rs.24,40,662/- and bank interest