ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

money through hawala to persons in Delhi also does not seem plausible. The cash was deposited in months of April and May while the purchase from M/s Rishabh Trading Company was done in October and moreover why would an assessee first show bogus sales and then to offset the same undertake bogus purchases and generate cash for making payments

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

money. Thus, aspect of unexplained expenditure u/s 69-C come into picture along with other aspects u/s 40A(3) etc. Thus, in the fitness of things, purchases as such are being disallowed in this case is completely justified. 6.5. Thus, in the case under hands, an addition on account 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 and brought to tax as unexplained income of the assessee. 10. Further, the Assessing Officer based on the notings found in bundle no.1 of Diary of 2009 and the statement given by assessee u/s 132(4) had concluded that the assessee was paid on-money consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- in cash in connection with the sale of property

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

bogus purchases of Rs.1,85,00,000/- as unexplained credit. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC it was submitted that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and the return was filed by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. It was argued that as per provisions of section 11, the entire income

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

bogus purchases of Rs.1,85,00,000/- as unexplained credit. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC it was submitted that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and the return was filed by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. It was argued that as per provisions of section 11, the entire income

TULSI EXTRUSIONS LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Tulsi Extrusions Ltd. N-99 & 100, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Pin-425 003 Pan : Aaact8441P .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Jalgaon. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

bogus purchases of machinery and interest thereon on borrowed funds are upheld. Thus, ground No.2 raised in appeal by the assessee is dismissed. 12. Ground No.3 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1434/PUN/2014 is partly allowed. A.Y.2010-11 A.Y. 2010-11 Now, we take up the issues

SOPAN D. PATIL,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chadhury

money passed from assessee to Shri Sushil Agarwal. When confronted, the assessee, in response to question no. 5, admitted in his statement u/s 132(4) : `to be out of unaccounted income of F.Y. 2009-10 not shown in the regular books of account’. He further stated that : `As evident from the seized papers and also statements recorded in respect

SOPAN D. PATIL,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chadhury

money passed from assessee to Shri Sushil Agarwal. When confronted, the assessee, in response to question no. 5, admitted in his statement u/s 132(4) : `to be out of unaccounted income of F.Y. 2009-10 not shown in the regular books of account’. He further stated that : `As evident from the seized papers and also statements recorded in respect

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, JALGAON vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchase of Soya seeds on behalf of the assessee. The total commission paid to the said HUF was Rs. 8,80,047/-. The first issue which is raised against the assessee is that it had not proved services rendered by the HUF. However, we find that similar services were availed by the assessee in earlier years and no disallowance

DCIT,JALGAON vs. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION P.LTD, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchase of Soya seeds on behalf of the assessee. The total commission paid to the said HUF was Rs. 8,80,047/-. The first issue which is raised against the assessee is that it had not proved services rendered by the HUF. However, we find that similar services were availed by the assessee in earlier years and no disallowance

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

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.

bogus sales bill issued by said company. The survey party also impounded the sales and purchase bills and other loose papers. The backup computer data is also taken by Survey Party in Pen drive. At the time of survey, the books of account was not complete and on the basis of incomplete books of account the assessee declared additional income

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.

bogus sales bill issued by said company. The survey party also impounded the sales and purchase bills and other loose papers. The backup computer data is also taken by Survey Party in Pen drive. At the time of survey, the books of account was not complete and on the basis of incomplete books of account the assessee declared additional income

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. 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

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