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

section 68 of the Act needs to be applied for such escapement of income, however, while concluding the re-assessment proceedings the additions have not been made u/s.68 of the Act but have been made u/s.115BBC of the Act and therefore there is ‘change of opinion’ and no show cause notice/reasons/revised reasons recorded for initiating the re-assessment proceedings

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

section 68 of the Act needs to be applied for such escapement of income, however, while concluding the re-assessment proceedings the additions have not been made u/s.68 of the Act but have been made u/s.115BBC of the Act and therefore there is ‘change of opinion’ and no show cause notice/reasons/revised reasons recorded for initiating the re-assessment proceedings

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

68 were justified.\n\n23. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nNarendra Shrikishan Agarwal Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.257/PUN/2019 order dated\n05.11.2019, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has rejected the\nassessee's long term capital gain exemption claim on sale of penny stock of a\npharma company

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

68 were justified.\n\n23. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nNarendra Shrikishan Agarwal Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.257/PUN/2019 order dated\n05.11.2019, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has rejected the\nassessee's long term capital gain exemption claim on sale of penny stock of a\npharma company

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

68 in respect of-Identity of the creditor Genuineness of the transaction Creditworthiness 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, as stated in para 5 of the assessment order, the assessee submitted the new address of the companies to whom notices u/s 133 were re issued. Except four Companies, the notices in all other companies were served. It shows that

DHAVAL VINOD GADA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dhaval Vinod Gada Dcit, Circle – 5, Pune 101, New Timber Market, Vs. Bhawani Peth, Pune – 411042 Pan: Anjpg4733A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

133(6) of the Act has also confirmed to have given the said loan and has filed his bank statement explaining the source, therefore, in our opinion, the assessee has fully discharged the onus cast upon him in terms of section 68

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

68 were justified.\n\n23. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nNarendra Shrikishan Agarwal Vs. ACIT vide ITA No.257/PUN/2019 order dated\n05.11.2019, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has rejected the\nassessee's long term capital gain exemption claim on sale of penny stock of a\npharma company

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

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

68 of the Act is also not warranted especially when the assessee has filed the audited accounts, bank statements, confirmation etc and the Assessing Officer also independently obtained information u/s 133(6) of the Act from Cambridge Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 17. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Admittedly, during

PREM GRAIN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,JALGOAN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Prem Grain Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 1, Jalgaon E 2/1, Midc Area, Ahjantha Vs. Road, Jalgaon – 425003 Pan: Aadcp9598E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Anchaliya Department By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Following Issue: “Whether Unsecured Loans Are Genuine & From Disclosed Sources.”

133(6) of the Act was issued to the DCIT (Central), Circle 2(1), Pune in response to which the DCIT (Central), Circle 2(1) provided a copy of the statement of Shri Abhinandan Suresh Jain S/o Suresh Jain which was recorded during the course of search action at the office of Risa International at Mumbai. A copy

UPPAL SHAH PROP-J K SUGARS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 by filing the documentary evidence in form of return of income, bank statements, PAN Numbers of all 16 sundry creditors. Mere fact that the notices u/s 133

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR vs. UPPAL JITENDRA SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 by filing the documentary evidence in form of return of income, bank statements, PAN Numbers of all 16 sundry creditors. Mere fact that the notices u/s 133

SHRIJEET FINANCE P LTD,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

68 of the Act made by the AO without appreciating the following important facts: a. The amount received are not credit instead are the payment received towards the regular monthly instalment of outstanding loan account. b. The said amounts are received towards the regular monthly instalment and not specifically due to demonetisation. c. The cash against loan was accepted after

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