ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

purchase of flats and gave the first instalment of ₹6.00 crore during the year, during F.Y. 2013-14 and ₹82.50 lakh during F.Y. 2014-15 and ₹3,13,50,000 during F.Y. 2015-16. Ld. Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act treating alleged sum as unexplained cash credit of the amount for making

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

purchase of flats and gave the first instalment of ₹6.00 crore during the year, during F.Y. 2013-14 and ₹82.50 lakh during F.Y. 2014-15 and ₹3,13,50,000 during F.Y. 2015-16. Ld. Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act treating alleged sum as unexplained cash credit of the amount for making

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

purchase of flats and gave the first instalment of ₹6.00 crore during the year, during F.Y. 2013-14 and ₹82.50 lakh during F.Y. 2014-15 and ₹3,13,50,000 during F.Y. 2015-16. Ld. Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act treating alleged sum as unexplained cash credit of the amount for making

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

purchase of flats and gave the first instalment of ₹6.00 crore during the year, during F.Y. 2013-14 and ₹82.50 lakh during F.Y. 2014-15 and ₹3,13,50,000 during F.Y. 2015-16. Ld. Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act treating alleged sum as unexplained cash credit of the amount for making

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

cash has been returned to the assessee. Further, it is only a mere suspicion by the GST department that why input credit be not withdrawn. However, no such action has been taken and the input credit still stands. He submitted that the assessee has provided all the requisite details such as lorry bills, invoices, e-way bills, etc. He submitted

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)

purchase of shares, the addition was deleted. 12. I find that assessee made sale of shares through BSE and paid security transaction tax and there is no allegation against the share broker through whom assessee has made sales that they were indulging any price manipulation. Therefore, I do not find any justification in treating the LTCG as unexplained cash credit

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement

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

purchase of\nshares, the addition was deleted.\n12. I find that assessee made sale of shares through BSE and paid\nsecurity transaction tax and there is no allegation against the share\nbroker through whom assessee has made sales that they were\nindulging any price manipulation. Therefore, I do not find any\njustification in treating the LTCG as unexplained cash credit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

Cash is then passed on to client to whom bill had been provided. There is no movement of goods. 4. Thus, it is clear that purchases to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/- are fictitious/bogus and claimed as expenditure in I&E account of Assessee trust. Considering the above facts, it is clear that assessee trust has claimed bogus expenditure

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

Cash is then passed on to client to whom bill had been provided. There is no movement of goods. 4. Thus, it is clear that purchases to extent of Rs.1,84,99,795/- are fictitious/bogus and claimed as expenditure in I&E account of Assessee trust. Considering the above facts, it is clear that assessee trust has claimed bogus expenditure

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

cash credits in the books which stands unexplained to the extent of Rs.50,00,000/- and thus the corresponding loan received from Cambridge financials of Rs. 50,00,000/- in bank accounts stands unexplained. 9.8 In the cases where assessee has received loan from entities but the genuineness and creditworthiness were neither explained nor such money offered for taxation

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

bogus liabilites created out of thin air by the assessee of which he has no documentary evidences. The assessee is making concoted afterthought stories which are not supported by any rationale or evidences. Therefore, an amount of Rs.19,72,000/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee being cessation of liability under the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

bogus liabilites created out of thin air by the assessee of which he has no documentary evidences. The assessee is making concoted afterthought stories which are not supported by any rationale or evidences. Therefore, an amount of Rs.19,72,000/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee being cessation of liability under the provisions

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal of all these case files with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer(s) three re-assessments herein treated their respective trading business turnovers as bougs; being 3 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

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

bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal of all these case files with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer(s) three re-assessments herein treated their respective trading business turnovers as bougs; being 3 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal of all these case files with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer(s) three re-assessments herein treated their respective trading business turnovers as bougs; being 3 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

bogus sale purchase transactions with many other parties involving these twin assessees. We further note from a combined perusal of all these case files with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the Assessing Officer(s) three re-assessments herein treated their respective trading business turnovers as bougs; being 3 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos