ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

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

112/-, the source of which has remained unexplained and also received interest of Rs.1,54,107/- which has not been disclosed for 3 ITA No.812/PUN/2025, AY 2011-12 taxation. Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Statutory notice

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

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

section 68 would indicate that when any money is found to be credited in the books of the assessee it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness. 16.3 The detailed analysis of evidences available on record clears any iota of doubt about the spurious nature of such transactions

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 10(38) conferring exemption to the gains arising on the sale or transfer of shares were fulfilled. The observations of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT are reproduced as under: "4. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. As shall be evident from the foregoing narration of events, the primary7 facts (and figures) of the case

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGOAN vs. SANT SATRAMDAS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.846/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-2 (1), Vs. Sant. Satramdas Infrastructure Pvt. Jalgaon Ltd., 63, Sadbhavna Bhavan, Sindhi Colony, Near Station Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Pan : Aakcs1083N Appellant Respondent

section 68 is concerned, it is seen that the assessee did not receive such amount in the previous year relevant to the year under consideration as it emanates from the reasons recorded by the AO for framing the instant assessment u/s.147, a copy of which has been placed at page 112

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

112 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, 198 ITR 147 (Ker.), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) confirmed the findings

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 that being the discrepancy noted by the Assessing Officer between the unsecured loan of Rs 25,00,000/- received by the assessee from an individual as per the audit report and the 9 confirmation of the same by the lender which was furnished during the assessment proceedings? 4) Whether in the facts

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

68,72,632 to the taxable income of the Appellant including an adjustment of INR 2,10,10,000/- on account of transfer pricing matters and INR 58,62,632/- on account of corporate tax matters. 4 2. The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Board) approval for transferring

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

68 to 69C\nto be strictly construed, onus/burden for the undisclosed\nincome and that the discharge of burden by the Revenue, no\naddition merely on the basis of suspicion, opportunity of cross\nexamination and also on the principle of preponderance of\nprobability. Lastly, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the\ndecision of Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SEEMA BHURARAM CHAUDHARY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

112,06,39,571 5. However, as per the Cash Book submitted by the assessee, the total cash deposits amount to Rs.89,89,17,527/-. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the amount of Rs.22,17,22,044/- should not be added to the total income of the assessee. In absence of any proper explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

112 (sale of quoted securities) '@10% Notwithstanding the above events, the appellant also requested the AO to allow him exemption U/s 10(38) in respect of sale of shares during the course of assessment proceedings. In spite of any change in the facts & circumstances and without any fresh evidence/material, the appellant retracted from the said disclosure. The contract notes, purchase

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share capital

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share capital

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share capital

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards the share capital