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

cash creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, then such credits appearing in the books of account can be taxed as income u/s.68 of the Act. We further observe that the compliance level of section 68 is more hard and even in some cases source of source is also asked for by AO whereas the compliance requirement u/s.115BBC is limited

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

cash creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, then such credits appearing in the books of account can be taxed as income u/s.68 of the Act. We further observe that the compliance level of section 68 is more hard and even in some cases source of source is also asked for by AO whereas the compliance requirement u/s.115BBC is limited

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

cash creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, then such credits appearing in the books of account can be taxed as income u/s.68 of the Act. We further observe that the compliance level of section 68 is more hard and even in some cases source of source is also asked for by AO whereas the compliance requirement u/s.115BBC is limited

M/S MAULI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA LIMITED,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

cash from its members which were deposited in its bank accounts i.e. Dena Bank, Murud and Latur District Co-operative Bank, Murud during the demonetization period. Before us, the assessee has not disputed the applicability of section 69A of the Act viz-a-viz section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3), PUNE vs. M B ASHTEKAR, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

cash deposits in question belong to the company M.B. Ashtekar Jewellers Pvt Ltd and not to the appellant partnership firm. Accordingly, the protective addition of Rs.1,97,57,500/- made in the hands of the appellant u/s 68 is hereby deleted. However, the A.O. is free to initiate proceedings u/s 148 read with section

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

cash creditor and the\ngenuineness of the transaction, then such credits appearing in\nthe books of account can be taxed as income u/s.68 of the\nAct. We further observe that the compliance level of section 68\nis more hard and even in some cases source of source is also\nasked for by AO whereas the compliance requirement\nu/s.115BBC is limited

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

cash creditor and the\ngenuineness of the transaction, then such credits appearing in\nthe books of account can be taxed as income u/s.68 of the\nAct. We further observe that the compliance level of section 68\nis more hard and even in some cases source of source is also\nasked for by AO whereas the compliance requirement\nu/s.115BBC is limited

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

deposit made at other than home branch of customers' accounts maintained with SRMUCS (Remote) (c) By transfer from other customers of SRMUCS. (d) By transfer from customer of SRMUCS/ other parties having accounts at Public/ Private sector banks. The amounts so credited were withdrawn by the depositors through following modes: (a) Cash withdrawn from home branch of customers' accounts maintained

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

deposit made at other than home branch of customers' accounts maintained with SRMUCS (Remote) (c) By transfer from other customers of SRMUCS. (d) By transfer from customer of SRMUCS/ other parties having accounts at Public/ Private sector banks. The amounts so credited were withdrawn by the depositors through following modes: (a) Cash withdrawn from home branch of customers' accounts maintained

M,AHAKALIKA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Section 68 of the income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Bank deposits) Assessment year 2009-10-Through internal information system

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

cash creditor and the\ngenuineness of the transaction, then such credits appearing in\nthe books of account can be taxed as income u/s.68 of the\nAct. We further observe that the compliance level of section 68\nis more hard and even in some cases source of source is also\nasked for by AO whereas the compliance requirement\nu/s.115BBC is limited

RAHUL NEMGONDA PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

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

cash deposit in the bark account of the assessee appellant does not\nchange. The relevant provisions can be section 69 in the case of term\ndeposits with the banks and section 60A in case of other deposits into bank\naccounts. Where the Assessing Officer has, mistakenly, treated unexplained\ndeposits in bank as income u/s 68

PARAG PRITINATH DUNUNG,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.105/Pun/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parag Pritinath Dunung, V The Income Tax Officer, 1529, Cward, Laxmipuri, S. Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416119. Pan: Aaypd2686B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Shri Mayuresh Doshi – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 20.11.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 74,91,000/- U/S 68 On Account Of Cash Balance Accumulated Out Of Undisclosed Sources Without Appreciating That The Assessee Has Explained Cash Balance Accumulated From The Regular Business In The Books Of Accounts.

section 250 of the Act, dated 20.11.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 74,91,000/- u/s 68 on account of cash balance accumulated out of undisclosed sources

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

Deposits were mostly by cash or transfer entries from the same bank of the entry providers. The Assessing Officer held that the said companies had no creditworthiness, financial worth or regular resources to justify their subscription of share capital money in the assessee company. He held that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus is proving the identity

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

deposit made at other than home branch of customers' accounts maintained with SRMUCS (Remote) (c) By transfer from other customers of SRMUCS. (d) By transfer from customer of SRMUCS/ other parties having accounts at Public/ Private sector banks. The amounts so credited were withdrawn by the depositors through following modes: 16 CO No.15/PUN/2025 (a) Cash withdrawn from home branch

SADASHIV NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 (2),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

68 of Rs.1,25,965/-. Since the cash deposits were made in the bank and the details of these deposits were made available from the bank passbooks, the AO should have made this addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, wrongly invoking section

PRASHANT VITHOBA NAVALE,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

68 of Rs.1,25,965/-. Since the cash deposits were made in the bank and the details of these deposits were made available from the bank passbooks, the AO should have made this addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, wrongly invoking section

DASHRATH KISHANRAO CHOUDHARY,GANGAKHED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

cash. The AO's addition of Rs. 40,99,500 as unexplained money under Section 68 and its taxation under Section 115BBE is legally justified due to non-compliance with the notification prohibiting SBN acceptance post-03.12.2016, Lack of evidence substantiating the source of the deposits