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

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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

68 of Rs. 30 lacs on account of share application money, the AO had during the course of assessment proceedings, issued notices u/s 133(6) to all the 8 share subscriber Companies, out of which 4 companies did not respond. ITAT noted that all the share application money have been received by account payee cheques and no adverse inference

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

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(6

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(6

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

133(6) letters 1 Nico Securities Pvt. Ltd., 21/11/2013 Return back Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai “Left” 2 Doldrem Investment & Finance 21/11/2013 Refused Pvt. Ltd., Dahisar (E), Mumbai 3 Ocean Investment & Finance 21/11/2013 Refused Pvt. Ltd., Dahisar (E), Mumbai 4 Veena Credit & Holding Pvt. 21/11/2013 Address moved Ltd., Kolkatta 5 Saumitra Investment & 21/11/2013 Refused Finance Pvt. Ltd., Dahisar (E), Mumbai 6

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

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

6 succeed.\n\n10. Since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition made u/s 10(38) of the\nAct, he also deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act\nbeing the commission @ 3% paid for accommodation entries taken.\n\n11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue

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

6 succeed.\n\n10. Since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition made u/s 10(38) of the\nAct, he also deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act\nbeing the commission @ 3% paid for accommodation entries taken.\n\n11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue

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

6 succeed.\n\n10. Since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition made u/s 10(38) of the\nAct, he also deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act\nbeing the commission @ 3% paid for accommodation entries taken.\n\n11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue

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

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

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, 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, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

133(6) of the Act were also returned un- served with the remark ‘no such company was found / insufficient address / not known, etc’. After considering the reply given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer concluded that the share application money so received by the assessee company from the above mentioned companies is nothing

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE vs. DIPTI NARENDRA LULLA, PUNE

sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "115BBE", "271AAC", "69", "270A", "131", "46A", "250(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred