RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

unexplained cash credits. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of "CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) ltd." (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

unexplained cash credits. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of "CIT vs. Jet Airways (1) ltd." (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess

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

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

credits within the meaning of section 69A of the Act but are the business receipts of the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our view, adoption of the profit rate of 10% on the total deposits in the bank account will meet the ends of justice. The Ld. AO is accordingly

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

credits within the meaning of section 69A of the Act but are the business receipts of the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our view, adoption of the profit rate of 10% on the total deposits in the bank account will meet the ends of justice. The Ld. AO is accordingly

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO - WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

credits within the meaning of section 69A of the Act but are the business receipts of the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our view, adoption of the profit rate of 10% on the total deposits in the bank account will meet the ends of justice. The Ld. AO is accordingly

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

cash credits in the books which stands unexplained to the extent of Rs.50,00,000/- and thus the corresponding loan received from Cambridge financials of Rs. 50,00,000/- in bank accounts stands unexplained. 9.8 In the cases where assessee has received loan from entities but the genuineness and creditworthiness were neither explained nor such money offered for taxation

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961.\n11. Final assessment_u/s_115BBC-As against the firm belief till\n29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019,\nhas taxed the donations of Rs.1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations'\nu/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961.\nGround of Appeal No. 1 & 2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961.\n11. Final assessment_u/s_115BBC-As against the firm belief till\n29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019,\nhas taxed the donations of Rs.1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations'\nu/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961.\nGround of Appeal No. 1 & 2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961.\n11. Final assessment_u/s_115BBC-As against the firm belief till\n29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019,\nhas taxed the donations of Rs.1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations'\nu/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961.\nGround of Appeal No. 1 & 2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.97,03,015/-. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, it was argued that the assessee got allotted 20000 shares of Rs.10 each of Anax Com Trade limited in private placement on 15.09.2012. The same were registered in the name

ASHOK HIRACHAND SHAH,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.812/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Hirachand Shah, Assessing Officer, Plot No. 4, Mangal Bunglow, Ward – 2, Panvel Road No. 5, Sector No. 19, Vs. New Panvel, Tal.-Panvel-410206 Pan : Acdps4800M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of 17-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Denial Of Natural Justice & Proper Opportunity The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Appellant Was Denied Proper Opportunity & Natural Justice During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Called For Information At The Far End Of The Assessment Proceedings On 19/11/2018 & Despite The Appellant'S Authorized Representative Submitting The Details On 19/12/2018, The Ao Failed To Discuss Or Consider The Same. The Matter Ought To Have Been Remanded Back For Fresh Adjudication To Allow Proper Analysis Of The Transactions. 2. Addition Without Specifying The Section The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- Made By The Ao Without Specifying The Section Under Which The Addition Was Made. The Non-Mention Of The Specific Section Renders The Assessment Order Bad In Law, As It Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice & Transparency In Taxation. 3. Failure To Discharge Onus Under Section 69A

cash deposits in the appellant's bank accounts were unexplained under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contends that the AO failed to discharge the initial onus of establishing that the credits were unexplained, and the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was not given a fair chance to explain the nature and source

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

SONU GOMA BHANGALE,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(1) JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

reassessment order dated 22/12/2017 became subject\nmatter of revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. Ld.PCIT\nvide order dated 30/03/2020 has given directions to the\nLd.AO for carrying out necessary verification of the source of\nalleged cash deposit and claim of agricultural income made by\nthe assessee in the income tax return and accepted by the\nLd.AO. In compliance

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. An addition of Rs.4,55,00,000/- is therefore made to the income of the assessee. [Addition: Rs. 4,55,00,000/-] 6. Before the CIT(A) the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment on the ground that the reasons for reopening

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

unexplained cash credits. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of “CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.” (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , LATUR vs. VIMAL JAYDEV ARYA, LATUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act being the amount of cash deposited in the bank account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Credit Ltd. We find during the appellate proceedings the assessee made elaborate submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, based on which he called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings as well as the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit