SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14 (3),, PUNE vs. JEEVAN POPATLAL BHALIYA, PUNE

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as „the Act‟) on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department regarding the Hawala Transactions. Notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2014. Thereafter, several notices were issued u/s.142(1) of the Act from time to time. Last notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order u/s

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

bogus LTCG/STCG. As these charges are not recorded in the books, such commission was presumed @ 2% of the sale amount of Rs.1,60,30,716/-. The amount of commission paid was accordingly arrived at Rs.3,20,614/- and was added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for arranging accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the order u/s

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

purchase and\nsale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained\ninvestment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus\nprofit on sale of shares.\n7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon\nexamining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

CHANDRAKANT RAGHUNATHRAO GOJE,,NANDED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, NANDED

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.603/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chandrakant Raghunathrao Goje, Prop. New Marathwada Traders, Sant Kripa Market, Nanded. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abjpg1263D बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nanded. Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021 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)- 1, Aurangabad (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under :- The Appellant Is An Individual & Dealer In Machinery Goods. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 07.10.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,45,270/- & There Was No Scrutiny Assessment Against The Said Return Of Income. Subsequently, Based On The Information Received From The Sales Tax Department That The Assessee Is Involved In The Bogus Purchases, A Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act

147 of the ITA, 1961; though no addition was made on the reason for which notice u/s 148 of the ITA, 1961 was issued. Appellant contends that the order passed by the learned I-T Authorities is bad in law considering the ratio laid down by the Honorable Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways

VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

purchases from him, reopening notice against assessee was justified. vi) In the case of Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann. Com 58 (Gujrat), Hon‟ble Gujrat High Court held that where material recovered in search of another person indicated that assessee had received bogus share applications through accommodation entries, since assessee was beneficiary, initiation of re-opening

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

bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. Thus there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the AO. There was independent application of mind on the part of the AO. Further reliance is placed upon clause (b) of explanation

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

u/s 147 has to be quashed. 16. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd, 93 taxmann.com 153, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where Assessing Officer had issued a reassessment notice on the basis of intimation from

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

147, the impugned assessment proceedings are not valid in law. 13 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice to the above: c. Approval mechanical: The Approval is mechanical and does not show any application of mind on escapement of income and the material so as to show escapement of income. The approval is granted on the proposal and further directs

V.M.MATERE INFRASTRUCTURES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 be declared null and void. 4 ITA.Nos.887 to 883/PUN./2022 And ITA.Nos.910 to 913/PUN./2022 V M Matere Infrastructures (India) Private Limited, Pune. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that – a. The notice issued u/s 148 was bad in law since the all aspects of sub-contracting expenses including

V.M.MATERE INFRASTRUCTURES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 be declared null and void. 4 ITA.Nos.887 to 883/PUN./2022 And ITA.Nos.910 to 913/PUN./2022 V M Matere Infrastructures (India) Private Limited, Pune. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that – a. The notice issued u/s 148 was bad in law since the all aspects of sub-contracting expenses including

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(4), , PUNE vs. V.M.MATERE INFRASTRUCTURES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 be declared null and void. 4 ITA.Nos.887 to 883/PUN./2022 And ITA.Nos.910 to 913/PUN./2022 V M Matere Infrastructures (India) Private Limited, Pune. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that – a. The notice issued u/s 148 was bad in law since the all aspects of sub-contracting expenses including