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

deposited in respondent's bank account. In view thereof, the\nCIT[A] found there was no reason to add the capital gains as unexplained cash

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

cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Relevant extract from the\ndecision of Hon'ble High Court is as under:\n\n\"4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent

AVINASH MURLIDHAR RUKARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 450/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

cash deposited in the Bank Account is out of sale of Land of HUF at Urulikanchan. The amounts have been withdrawn by himself and his mother. This plea is not acceptable, since HUF has filed separate I.T. Return disclosing the Capital Gain

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

deposits received from M/s. Shubha Associates keeping in mind the smallness of the amount. Rejected accordingly. 5. Lastly comes the long term capital gains addition issue of Rs.49,22,000/- made in both the lower proceedings. The CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s arguments as follows :- 2 for A.Y. 2013-14 Mangilal L. Chowdhary “10.2 I have perused

SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain at Rs. 48,23,210/- which was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer found that during the assessment proceedings of the other co-owner /partner Shri. Mahendra Vitkar for A.Y. 2006-07, Shri Vitkar in his reply submitted on 29-12-2008 had stated that he had not made any investment in the property i.e. the two lands

ITO WARD 9(4),, PUNE vs. SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain at Rs. 48,23,210/- which was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer found that during the assessment proceedings of the other co-owner /partner Shri. Mahendra Vitkar for A.Y. 2006-07, Shri Vitkar in his reply submitted on 29-12-2008 had stated that he had not made any investment in the property i.e. the two lands

GANPAT MUKUNDRAO MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain at Rs. 48,23,210/- which was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer found that during the assessment proceedings of the other co-owner /partner Shri. Mahendra Vitkar for A.Y. 2006-07, Shri Vitkar in his reply submitted on 29-12-2008 had stated that he had not made any investment in the property i.e. the two lands

TATYASAHEB NARAYAN LAGAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

cash in hand as on 31.03.2015 but somehow 'NIL' has been mentioned against this column. The appellant stated that he is an individual, a partner in a partnership firms and derives income from house property, income from partnership firms. income from Capital Gains, and income from other sources and deposited

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)

deposited in respondent’s bank account. In view thereof, the CIT(A) found there was no reason to add the capital gains as unexplained cash

PRASHANT PRATAP AHIR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1954/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Prashant Pratap Ahir At – Bunglow No.8, Mahindra Society, 121, Nagar Road, Pune – 411006 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aefpa6461E बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 10, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Prashant Pratap Ahir Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 07/08/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Soared Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 21/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 9

capital gain instead of unexplained cash credit. Au contraire the learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] adverting to para 2 to 5 of assessment order strongly contrasted the submission of appellant and submitted that, the appellant taking chameleon stance one after another to substantiate the cash deposits

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

gain. Keeping this nexus in mind and proving the same, the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.) , Kolkata prepared a cash trail for showing that how the mechanism worked for the syndicate of providing long term capital gain/short term capital loss. For preparing this cash trail, the Investigation Wing, Kolkata followed the money movement from undisclosed proprietorship accounts where cash

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

cash from the definition of goods. Besides, no person other than authorized dealers and money changers are allowed in India to trader in foreign currency, much less speculate. Sec. 8 of the Foreign exchange Regulations Act, 1973, provides that except with prior general or special permission of the RBI, no person other than an authorized dealer shall purchase, acquire, borrow

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

cash from the definition of goods. Besides, no person other than authorized dealers and money changers are allowed in India to trader in foreign currency, much less speculate. Sec. 8 of the Foreign exchange Regulations Act, 1973, provides that except with prior general or special permission of the RBI, no person other than an authorized dealer shall purchase, acquire, borrow

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

cash from the definition of goods. Besides, no person other than authorized dealers and money changers are allowed in India to trader in foreign currency, much less speculate. Sec. 8 of the Foreign exchange Regulations Act, 1973, provides that except with prior general or special permission of the RBI, no person other than an authorized dealer shall purchase, acquire, borrow

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

deposited in respondent's bank\naccount. In view thereof, the CIT(A) found there was no reason to add the\ncapital gains as 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

SATISH DHANESHAN KOLLARA,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

cash book of the assessee was also provided to the Assessing officer as well as to the First Appellate Authority for their reference. Therefore the hypothetical addition to sales Rs.1361000/- needs to be set aside. 2. The Appellate Authority erred by adding Rs.20,72,543/- as long term capital gain on sales of land in place of Rs.7

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gains, the appellant purchased 3,15,700 shares in name of 4 persons @ Rs 12 per share and the payment of Rs 37,88,400 was made by way of cheque. Since transaction was sham, after the cheques were issued for purchase of shares of Rs 37,88,400 the appellant was paid cash

KARIMKHAN SHAHNOORKHAN PATEL,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Cash deposits in saving bank account Rs.12,00,000/-. ii. Interest income Rs.71,538/-. iii. Short Term Capital Gain on sale