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

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 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

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

purchases and expenses and also based on the information collected from the assessee observed that the assessee company has arranged bogus expenses of Rs.24.24 crore which inter alia included bogus commission expenses also. When the assessee was confronted, it was submitted that these bogus losses have been arranged to cover up the inflated project value invoiced to TIL by Rs.26.55

SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

set of facts since the learned lower authorities had taken recourse to sec.148/147 reopening mechanism to disallow their respective cash purchases based on various departmental and alleged CBI investigation(s) that one M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd., had entered into bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

set of facts since the learned lower authorities had taken recourse to sec.148/147 reopening mechanism to disallow their respective cash purchases based on various departmental and alleged CBI investigation(s) that one M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd., had entered into bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal

DCIT CIRCLE- 5, PUNE vs. SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD., PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

set of facts since the learned lower authorities had taken recourse to sec.148/147 reopening mechanism to disallow their respective cash purchases based on various departmental and alleged CBI investigation(s) that one M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd., had entered into bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

set of facts since the learned lower authorities had taken recourse to sec.148/147 reopening mechanism to disallow their respective cash purchases based on various departmental and alleged CBI investigation(s) that one M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd., had entered into bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

set of facts since the learned lower authorities had taken recourse to sec.148/147 reopening mechanism to disallow their respective cash purchases based on various departmental and alleged CBI investigation(s) that one M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd., had entered into bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

set of facts since the learned lower authorities had taken recourse to sec.148/147 reopening mechanism to disallow their respective cash purchases based on various departmental and alleged CBI investigation(s) that one M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd., had entered into bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such

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

Loss\nLong Term\n| 111926 | 5372447 | 82196621 | 76824174 |\n| 5372447 | 82196621 | 76824174 |\n\n6. The assessee purchased shares of penny stock company. Part of this was sold during the FY 2014-15 as\ndetailed above. The detailed investigation carried out by the AO resulted into proving the fact that the assessee in\nfact claimed bogus long term capital gains

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

Loss\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Long Term |\n| 111926 | 5372447 | 82196621 | 76824174 | - |\n| | 5372447 | 82196621 | 76824174 | |\n\n6. The assessee purchased shares of penny stock company. Part of this was sold during the FY 2014-15 as\ndetailed above. The detailed investigation carried out by the AO resulted into proving the fact that the assessee in\nfact claimed bogus long term capital

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)

loss that is stated to have been taken, no distinguishable feature can be or could be placed on record. For the same reasons, even this additional question cannot be termed as substantial question of law.” 12. We may now refer to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ziauddin A Siddique (Income

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

loss. I had not disclosed this income in my return\nof Income. After taking in to account the abovementioned expenses I had\nearned approx. Rs 15,00,000/- on the AY 2013-14 as most of the payout of\nLTCG against cash was done in this year. I have not disclosed this income in\nmy return filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN MOTILAL MUTHA, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2211/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Vs Sachin Motilal Mutha, Officer, H-4, Kalyan Co. Op. Hsg. Sco., Ward-11(1), Pune. Shankarsheth Road, Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune – 411004. Pan: Ahdpm2649F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Sachin Motilal Mutha (Assessee) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 21.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144Bof The Act, Dated 25.03.2023. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

bogus scrip of M/s. PMC Fin. Corp. and sold the same during the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to the A.Y. 2018-19 and derived at LTCG. Assessee has failed to produce any authentic documentary evidence with regard to the quantum of sale made relating to the shares of M/s. PMC Fin. Corp., the entire exemption u/s10(38) amounting to Rs.6930

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

set-off of brought forward losses on amalgamating company on amalgamation with assessee was not in order, reopening of assessment on second thought on same audit objection was not permissible while exercising powers under section 147 read with section 148. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary