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

section 69C of the Act which was not considered by the appellate authority. However, in the case of the assessee the addition for non-genuine purchases was not made u/s 69C of the Act. The purchases were added to the income from business and profession of the assessee company. He further submitted that the facts of the instant case

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 and 69C

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 and 69C

SHIV SHRADDHA DEVELOPER,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -3 KALYAN , KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchases from the said parties were bogus and made addition as unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 3. On appeal

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

purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist reasons to believe that the income arising out of sale of shares of penny\nstock company PLFIL have escaped assessment.\n7. Applicability of the provision of section 147/151 to the facts

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

purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist reasons to believe that the income arising out of sale of shares of penny\nstock company PLFIL have escaped assessment म\n\n7. Applicability of the provision of section 147/151

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

purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist reasons to believe that the income arising out of sale of shares of penny\nstock company PLFIL have escaped assessment\n\n7. Applicability of the provision of section 147/151 to the facts

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)

69C on allegation of commission paid by the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik. 5. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making addition of an amount of Rs.15,000/- under section 69 on allegation of non- submission of proof as regards purchase of initial investment by the assessee

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

69C on allegation of\ncommission paid by the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income\nTax(Appeals)-1, Nashik.\n5.\nThe learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Nashik, has erred in making\naddition of an amount of Rs.15,000/- under section 69 on allegation of non-\nsubmission of proof as regards purchase of initial investment by the\nassessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are\nnot recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale\namount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly\narrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the\nAct for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly\npassed the 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’).

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

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

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

69C of the Act being the commission @ 3% paid for accommodation entries taken. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

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

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

69C of the Act being the commission @ 3% paid for accommodation entries taken. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

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

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

69C of the Act being the commission @ 3% paid for accommodation entries taken. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order