DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

80,05,90,205/- which forms the basis of the action of the Assessing Officer\ncomprised of the following amounts:\nSr. No.\nName of the Party\nAmount (in Rs.)\n1\nM/s. Siasons Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. (STIPL)\n5,05,31,847/-\n2\nM/s. Forum Enterprises\n4,14,30,000/-\n3\nMirage Multiventures

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

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

purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only commission for providing such false entries in its books of account. He, therefore, added an amount of Rs.3,60,11,804/- being the commission @ 2% on such bogus sales amounting to Rs.1,80,05,90,205/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Before

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

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 of accounts of it and has made an addition of Rs.2

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

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)

80,489/-. Aggrieved by the Order the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The 2 Suryachandra Lalmani Dubey [R] Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO had recorded the reasons for reopening as “needs to be verified”, which is outside the purview of section 147.Accordingly,Ld.CIT(A) allowed the Legal ground raised by the assessee. The Ld.CIT

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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

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

bogus purchases. Therefore, we doubt the correctness of the invocation of provisions of section 69C of the Act. In any event, the law is very well settled that the finding recorded by the AO are relevant evidences to support the allegation of this concealment but this cannot be the foundation for holding guilty of concealment. The fiction created u/s.69C itself

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

80,259/- as alleged undisclosed purchases and Rs. 2,55,498/- as alleged suppressed sales, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence, accounting principles, and provisions of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. GROUND NO. 4: GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly violated the principles of natural Justice by deliberately

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

80,259/- as alleged undisclosed purchases and Rs. 2,55,498/- as alleged suppressed sales, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence, accounting principles, and provisions of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. GROUND NO. 4: GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly violated the principles of natural Justice by deliberately

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 of shares is not made by the public but by the bogus entities managed and controlled by the promoter of the penny stock company or the operator which are referred to as exist providers. The unaccounted money of the beneficiaries is routed to these bogus entities exist 8 providers and the shares held by the beneficiaries are bought

R. K. WINES,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus purchases from the disputed\ncreditors. It is thus the case that without such purchases the subsequent\nsale of liquor could not have been effected.\nThe appellant submits that non responding by some parties to notice us\n133(6) cannot be a ground to reject book results u/s 145(3) Reliance\nplaced on CIT-vs-Jas Jack Elegance Exports

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

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

section 10(38) and made\nadditions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for\nproviding bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse\ncomments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these\ntransactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing\nreport, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted