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

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

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. SURYACHANDRA LALMANI DUBEY, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

investment in shares amounting to Rs.1,54,81,620/- and had shown dividend of Rs.9,74,420/-. During the A.Y. 2010-11 assessee had shown LTCG of Rs.33,48,191/- and dividend income of Rs.14,44,763/- and shown Rs.1,21,33,429 as gift. Hence it is seen that assessee had gifted these shares without any consideration. This fact

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

purchased the Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. through offline mode on 12.11.2012. Further, there was no response from the side of assessee to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO concluded that the long term capital gain shown by the assessee in the return of income if bogus. He accordingly added the total amount

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that Shri Ganesh Bhutada has also earned interest of Rs.66,75,000/- on the amount so lent to Shri Ashok B Jain, therefore the said amount was also brought to tax under ‘Income from other sources’. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee, apart from

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that Shri Ganesh Bhutada has also earned interest of Rs.66,75,000/- on the amount so lent to Shri Ashok B Jain, therefore the said amount was also brought to tax under ‘Income from other sources’. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee, apart from

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)

investment by the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 6. Additions made without any evidence should be deleted. 7. The Assessment Order under section 143(3) dated 28/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1. Nashik has erred

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus and\nmade addition on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of\nthe Act at Rs.1,00,08,500/- and assessed the income at Rs.\n1,10,39,810/-\n4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred\nappeal before Ld.CIT(A) challenging the validity of notice u/s.\n148 as well as validity of re-assessment proceedings, and on\nmerits

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

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The\ntribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed\non facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange

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

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The\ntribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed\non facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange

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

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The\ntribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed\non facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange

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

investment by the\nassessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik\nhas erred in confirming the same.\n6.\nAdditions made without any evidence should be deleted.\n7.\nThe Assessment Order under section 143(3) dated 28/12/2016 passed by\nthe Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income\nTax(Appeals)-1. Nashik has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

purchase and sale of shares were a part of\naccommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by\nassessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus

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 or mere accommodation entries received from shell companies based at Kolkata. Thus, the conditions precedent for purpose of making addition u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A does not stand satisfied in the present case. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs.13,27,54,925/- being the unsecured loans as unexplained income in the assessment