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.

purchase bills and sales bills impounded in survey. 8. The appellant craves for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. The original return of income was filed

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.

purchase bills and sales bills impounded in survey. 8. The appellant craves for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. The original return of income was filed

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

survey action u/s 133A of the Act. Since some documents pertaining to unaccounted cash transactions by Shri Ashok B Jain were related to the assessee, proceedings were initiated in the case of the assessee u/s 153C by recording satisfaction and notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 29.03.2021. The assessee in response to the same filed the return

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

survey action u/s 133A of the Act. Since some documents pertaining to unaccounted cash transactions by Shri Ashok B Jain were related to the assessee, proceedings were initiated in the case of the assessee u/s 153C by recording satisfaction and notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 29.03.2021. The assessee in response to the same filed the return

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)

133A of the Act was carried out in the case of Laxmivilas Buildcon Ltd., Nashik in which the assessee Shri Dineshkumar R. Tulsyan is a Director and his statement was recorded u/s 131 of the Act. The survey continued upto 4.30 AM on 02.09.2015. Although the assessee, during the course of survey in the case of Laxmivilas Buildcon

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

133A of the Act was carried out in the case of Laxmivilas Buildcon\nLtd., Nashik in which the assessee Shri Dineshkumar R. Tulsyan is a Director and\nhis statement was recorded u/s 131 of the Act. The survey continued upto 4.30\nAM on 02.09.2015. Although the assessee, during the course of survey in the case\nof Laxmivilas Buildcon

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

survey on assessee. On revenue's appeal, High Court confirmed\norder of Tribunal. The SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court holding that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by\nHigh Court.\n\n8.8 Among others, the appellant placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional Bombay High Court

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

survey on assessee. On revenue's appeal, High Court confirmed\norder of Tribunal. The SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court holding that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by\nHigh Court.\n\n8.8 Among others, the appellant placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional Bombay High Court

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

survey on assessee. On revenue's appeal, High Court confirmed\norder of Tribunal. The SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court holding that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by\nHigh Court.\n\n8.8 Among others, the appellant placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional Bombay High Court

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

Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. JM Financial Asset Management Limited (“JM Financial”) situated at 7th & 8th Floor, Appa Saheb Marathe Marg, Cynergy, 3 IT(SS)A Nos.23 to 25/PUN/2024 Prabhadevi, Mumbai, during which it was found that JM Balanced Fund – Dividend Option Regular scheme by JM Financial had manipulated accounting methodology

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

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

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

survey u/s 133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions revealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 term capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to the staternents of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh

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

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

survey u/s 133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions revealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 term capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to the staternents of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh

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

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

survey u/s 133A was carried out by the department and subsequent actions revealed that the shares of the company were manipulated to generate bogus long CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 term capital gain / short term capital gain for various beneficiaries. Referring to the staternents of Shri. P Amresh Kumar, MD of PFLIL, Shri Abhinandan Jain, Director of PFLIL and Shri. Naresh