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

section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting the\nsale

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

section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting the\nsale

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

purchased back even at a loss, share transactions in question were to be regarded as bogus and, thus, amount received from said transactions was to be added to assesee's taxable income under section 68

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)

bogus purchases rather than considering only the profit margin on the addition made. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5% by going against the principles of section 68

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)

bogus purchases rather than considering only the profit margin on the addition made. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5% by going against the principles of section 68

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

68 of the Act being commission @ 2% of the bogus sales amounting to Rs.180,05,90,205/- on the ground that the assessee had shown false entries of purchases made from non-existing entities. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of sales out of such purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only the commission for providing such

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

bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.1,84,99,795/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: 3 CO No.12/PUN/2025 “1. Assessee is Charitable trust registered u/s 12A of IT Act. The activities of trust mainly involves educational activities like running of Schools & Colleges

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

bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.1,84,99,795/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: 3 CO No.12/PUN/2025 “1. Assessee is Charitable trust registered u/s 12A of IT Act. The activities of trust mainly involves educational activities like running of Schools & Colleges

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

68,362 0.069% M/s. Anuradha Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. ₹7,81,80,000 ₹3,16,000 0.4% M/s. Ferrum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ₹9,89,98,584 ₹10,98,357 1.1% M/s. Accurate Metal Corporation ₹(-)3,35,765 NA M/s. Jasonath NO DATA Bright Steel Ltd. (g) The assessment order of M/s Sharp King Trading Pvt. Ltd. has rejected the books

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

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

purchased shares of a company listed on Bombay Stock Exchange through a D-mat account, with payments made via banking channels and Security Transaction Tax paid, fulfilling all conditions for exemption under Section 10(38), Assessing Officer could not question genuineness of those shares or treat them as bogus to make an addition under Section 68

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

bogus purchases over and above rate of gross profit of 4.63 per cent declared by assessee and passed assessment order, since assessee had produced all necessary details of purchase, sales, audited books of account, quantity details and there was no discrepancy between purchase and sales declined, Assessing Officer had taken one possible view out of two assumption and thus

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

purchase of flats and gave the first instalment of ₹6.00 crore during the year, during F.Y. 2013-14 and ₹82.50 lakh during F.Y. 2014-15 and ₹3,13,50,000 during F.Y. 2015-16. Ld. Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act treating alleged sum as unexplained cash credit of the amount for making

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

purchase of flats and gave the first instalment of ₹6.00 crore during the year, during F.Y. 2013-14 and ₹82.50 lakh during F.Y. 2014-15 and ₹3,13,50,000 during F.Y. 2015-16. Ld. Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act treating alleged sum as unexplained cash credit of the amount for making

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

purchase of flats and gave the first instalment of ₹6.00 crore during the year, during F.Y. 2013-14 and ₹82.50 lakh during F.Y. 2014-15 and ₹3,13,50,000 during F.Y. 2015-16. Ld. Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act treating alleged sum as unexplained cash credit of the amount for making

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

purchase of flats and gave the first instalment of ₹6.00 crore during the year, during F.Y. 2013-14 and ₹82.50 lakh during F.Y. 2014-15 and ₹3,13,50,000 during F.Y. 2015-16. Ld. Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act treating alleged sum as unexplained cash credit of the amount for making

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)

68 of the Act and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik, has erred in confirming the same. 4. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making addition of an amount of Rs.1,00,979/- under section 69C on allegation of commission paid by the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income

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