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

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The appellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6. 8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the assessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL Infotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The appellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6. 8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the assessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL Infotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting

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

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

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

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI MANOJ SURESH SHARMA,, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1645/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

unexplained income. CO. No.18/PUN/2017 Shri Manoj Suresh Sharma 5. In the First appellate proceedings, assessee made a prayer that the purchases are genuine and therefore, the addition should be deleted entirely. As per the statement of facts before the CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions and the relevant paragraphs of the said statement of facts are extracted here as under

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SMT. JAYSHREE SURESH SHARMA,, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1646 To 1648/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

unexplained income. Further, the AO also made similar addition of Rs.1,64,09,250/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.2,28,93,595/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. 5. In the First appellate proceedings, assessee made a prayer that the purchases are genuine and therefore, the addition should be deleted entirely. As per the statement of facts before

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SMT. JAYSHREE SURESH SHARMA,, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1646 To 1648/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

unexplained income. Further, the AO also made similar addition of Rs.1,64,09,250/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.2,28,93,595/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. 5. In the First appellate proceedings, assessee made a prayer that the purchases are genuine and therefore, the addition should be deleted entirely. As per the statement of facts before

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BHARAT IRON SYNDICATE,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

credited in their bank accounts in the normal course of transactions and no siphoning of the amounts in cash or otherwise from those bank accounts standing in the name of hawala dealers have been made. Since the assessee has failed in this regard in all parameters, the purchases purportedly made from these parties have not been proved genuine

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RAKESH MOTILAL SHARMA,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2123 & 2124/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The appellant beyond doubt could prove that the shares were genuinely purchase and sold and the sale proceeds were rightly claimed by tin appellant as income from long term capital gains and that too also exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. I agree with the reasoning and arguments offered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RAKESH MOTILAL SHARMA,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2123 & 2124/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The appellant beyond doubt could prove that the shares were genuinely purchase and sold and the sale proceeds were rightly claimed by tin appellant as income from long term capital gains and that too also exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. I agree with the reasoning and arguments offered

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The appellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6. 8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the assessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL Infotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting

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