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

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

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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

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

VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

section 147(a) is that the Assessing Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prims facie grounds for thinking that there has been some non-disclosure of material facts. Whether these grounds were adequate or not for arriving at such conclusion would not be open for the Courts‟ Investigation. Clearly it-is the duty of the assessee who wants

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

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

89 (SC) and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Suman Poddar vs. ITO reported in (2019) taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) and various other decisions, he submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 20. So far as the observation

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

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

89 (SC) and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Suman Poddar vs. ITO reported in (2019) taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) and various other decisions, he submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 20. So far as the observation

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

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

89 (SC) and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Suman Poddar vs. ITO reported in (2019) taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) and various other decisions, he submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 20. So far as the observation

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

89 (SC) has observed as under: 33 ……………….In matters such as these all facts are within the knowledge of the appellant and therefore the department is not expected to prove its case with mathematical precision but a degree of probability of a prudent man taking into account the probable behaviour of a reasonable man along with surrounding circumstances

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

89 (SC) has observed as under: 33 ……………….In matters such as these all facts are within the knowledge of the appellant and therefore the department is not expected to prove its case with mathematical precision but a degree of probability of a prudent man taking into account the probable behaviour of a reasonable man along with surrounding circumstances

SMITA MANOJ PATANE,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO 2(1) KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Diwakar Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), 339/21/22/23, Vasant Kolhapur. Sahawas, Wing F-3, Shahupuri, Karveer- 416003. Pan : Aippp3853K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.711/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Samita Manoj Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Shop No.1 653/A, Kusum Kolhapur. Apartment, 2Nd Lane, Shahupuri- 416001. Pan : Amypp8375M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By Two Difference Assessees Are Directed Against The Different Order Dated 16.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) & Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 (In The Case Of Smita Manoj Patane) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.437/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

bogus sales bill issued by said company. The survey party also impounded the sales and purchase bills and other loose papers. The backup computer data is also taken by Survey Party in Pen drive. At the time of survey, the books of account was not complete and on the basis of incomplete books of account the assessee declared additional income

MANOJ DIWAKAR PATANE,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1) KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Diwakar Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), 339/21/22/23, Vasant Kolhapur. Sahawas, Wing F-3, Shahupuri, Karveer- 416003. Pan : Aippp3853K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.711/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Samita Manoj Patane, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Shop No.1 653/A, Kusum Kolhapur. Apartment, 2Nd Lane, Shahupuri- 416001. Pan : Amypp8375M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By Two Difference Assessees Are Directed Against The Different Order Dated 16.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) & Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 (In The Case Of Smita Manoj Patane) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.437/Pun/2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 (In The Case Of Manoj Diwakar Patane) As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

bogus sales bill issued by said company. The survey party also impounded the sales and purchase bills and other loose papers. The backup computer data is also taken by Survey Party in Pen drive. At the time of survey, the books of account was not complete and on the basis of incomplete books of account the assessee declared additional income

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

89 of the Act made in the ITR and\ncomputation and requested the Ld. AO to treat and consider all\ncompensation/payments as Capital Receipts as they were received as Ex-\nGratia and severance pay and in lieu of premature termination of\nassessee's employment. It was paid towards loss of source of income due\nto pre-mature termination of assessee

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

bogus nature of the loans received by the assessee, no addition on account of unsecured loans can be made, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue has become academic in nature and accordingly, dismissed. 50 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 C. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.97/PUN/2022

BHAVIK JAYESH THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, NASHIK

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) dated 26/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 7. The assessee appeals to grant any relief that may be due to the Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter