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

section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence and the contents of the report of the Investigation\ncarried out in paras

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 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

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 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

PUNE ZILHA MADHYAWARTI SAHAKARI BANK SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CTI -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1086/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

68,150/- and concluded the assessment. 4. Subsequently, ld. PCIT examined the assessment record and under the provisions of section

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

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

150/- as unsecured loans during the year and also squared up of the\nloans of Rs.14,55,15,356/- during the year under consideration. The assessee has\nnot furnished any written submission for the purpose of loan or any justification in\nspite of providing ample opportunities of being heard. Further the assessee has\npaid interest of Rs.87

M/S OM NAMAH SHIVAY TRADING COMPANY,,PARAOLA vs. 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 S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 the recipient has to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. In the present case only identity has been proved as Mr Harish Kantilal Shah in a statement before the investigation wing Mumbai and on the overall perspective of evidence furnished by the appellant do not seem to have much creditworthiness. As regards as genuineness

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68, therefore the addition of alleged commission payment is also deleted. This ground of assessee is also allowed." 7. Considering the aforesaid observations and findings recorded by the Tribunal, we notice that the transaction of the assessee was doubted by the authority on the basis of the report of the Investigating Wing, Kolkata. It is pertinent to note

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

150 trading days- a rise of 4694%. The SIT obtained the background details of these cases and studied them. A typical pattern is observed to be followed in such cases: i) A company with very poor financial fundaments in terms of past income or turnover is able to raise huge capital by preferential allotment of shares made to various entitles

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

section 68 is deleted. Considering the fact\nthat I have accepted the LTCG by deleting the addition made under\nsection 68, therefore the addition of alleged commission payment is\nalso deleted. This ground of assessee is also allowed.\"\n7. Considering the aforesaid observations and findings recorded by the\nTribunal, we notice that the transaction of the assessee was doubted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

68 of the Act. 1) Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 2) CIT vs. Rathi Finlease Ltd. (Madhya Pradesh HC) 3) Par Excellence Leasing and Financial Services (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (Delhi ITAT) 4) J.J. Development (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, Kolkata 5) Advance Power Infra Tech Ltd. vs DCIT (Kolkata ITAT) 6) CIT vs. Korlay trading co. Ltd. (Calcutta

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of advances\nreceived from the customers which were shown as liabilities. He submitted that\nthough the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the correct amount of advances received\nis Rs.22.99 crore, however, he held that the assessee should have offered the said\namount as sales in the year under consideration and there

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of advances received from the customers which were shown as liabilities. He submitted that though the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the correct amount of advances received is Rs.22.99 crore, however, he held that the assessee should have offered the said amount as sales in the year under consideration and there

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of advances received from the customers which were shown as liabilities. He submitted that though the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the correct amount of advances received is Rs.22.99 crore, however, he held that the assessee should have offered the said amount as sales in the year under consideration and there

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

68 of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in making the addition of unsecured loans. E. As regards, the addition made on account of alleged receipt of on-money consideration in cash, as well as, the payment of alleged on-money purchase consideration in cash, he submits that the plot at Paud Road was not purchased

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

68 is hereby deleted. However, the A.O. is free to initiate proceedings u/s 148 read with section 150(1) of the Act in the hands

CHANDRAKANT RAMCHANDRA PUJARI,,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5,, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.440/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Chandrakant Ramchandra Pujari, Rajlaxmi Enterprises, Plot No.814, Road No.8, Kwc, Steel Market, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai-410218. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Akmpp3455C बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-5, ……""यथ" / Respondent Panvel. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 21.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Sufficient Time To The Assessee During The Proceedings Before Him Which Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice & Therefore The Said Order Is To Be Considered As Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law. 2. Without Prejudice To The Ground No.1, The Learned Cit (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Addition U/S 41(1) / 68 Of The Act On Account Of The Outstanding Balances Of Creditors Amounting To Rs.45,25,259 Without Appreciating The Facts & Submissions Made Before The Learned Ao As Well As Learned Cit (A) In This Behalf. 3. Without Prejudice To The Ground No.1, The Learned Cit (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Addition U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of The Advance Received From Customer Amounting To Rs.12,00,000 Without Appreciating The Facts & Submissions Made Before The Learned Ao As Well As Learned Cit (A) In This Behalf.

150/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of sundry creditors appearing in the books of account by holding that the sundry creditors ceases to exist invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.12,00,000/- being advance received from the customers by holding that