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

M/S. SUN POLYMERS,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Sun Polymers Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna D-55/2, Additional Midc Area, Jalna – 431203 Pan: Aapfs4537H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 05-08-2020 Date Of Pronouncement 05-08-2020 आदेश / Order

investment covered u/s 69 of the Act. Since Rs.100/- initially went out from the coffers of the assessee through banking channel, the same could not be treated as unexplained as to bring it within the purview of section 69 of the Act. In the like manner, when the assessee purchased machines in the open market at Rs.85/-, out of Rs.99

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

VIPUL NIRANJAN SHAH,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1453/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr.Vipul Niranjan Shah, The Deputy Commissioner Of 39, Mantri Court, Wellesley Road, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2,Pune. Sangam, Pune – 411001. Pan: Achps 9906 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sagar S.Tilak– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe- Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2022

investment in these purchases also could not be proved by the Appellant. All this definitely proves that, the Appellant did not effect any purchase at all. Therefore, the expenses claimed by the Assessee stand ‘unexplained’ and the AO has rightly added back this amount u/s 69C of the I.T.Act. The addition so made is sustained. The Ground No.3

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

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

unexplained, besides being tax exempt, and which is independent of its purchase. The purchase of shares of a little known company of the face value of Rs. 10/- each at Rs.21/- to Rs.22/- would even otherwise hardly raise any eyebrow or doubt. The purchase gets doubted examined only for the reason that it represents a part of the overall transaction

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

DELLIP V. KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.203/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dellip V. Kotecha, Vs. Acit, Central Circle- 1, 1, Pradhan Apartment, Nashik. Pratap Nagar, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Abcpk8441J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 22.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “[A] Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned A.O. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Amounting To Rs.

unexplained income”. 6 4. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that : As regards to the sum of Rs.6,20,00,000/- was paid in cash as part of the accommodation entries for purchase of shares and bogus

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

purchased the shares of the assessee at the premium of Rs.190/- per share have not even enquired any details of their investments or any details regarding the business transactions and profitability of the assessee company.” 4.4 The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee on 14.02.2013 and in response thereto, the assessee filed detailed reply and the Assessing

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

purchased the shares of the assessee at the premium of Rs.190/- per share have not even enquired any details of their investments or any details regarding the business transactions and profitability of the assessee company.” 4.4 The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee on 14.02.2013 and in response thereto, the assessee filed detailed reply and the Assessing

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

purchased the shares of the assessee at the premium of Rs.190/- per share have not even enquired any details of their investments or any details regarding the business transactions and profitability of the assessee company.” 4.4 The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee on 14.02.2013 and in response thereto, the assessee filed detailed reply and the Assessing