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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

160 taxmann.com 608 (SC). In that case, the assessing officer made additions undersections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators', by rejectingthe assessee's revised return claiming exemption under section

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

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

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

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

Section 68. 25. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Kuntala Mohapatra 160

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

160 taxmann.com 83 (Jharkhand) (f) Dr. Prakash Tiwari Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [1983] 14 Taxman 252 (MP) Thus, the contention of the appellant wherein it has been contended that addition of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- has been made without specifying the section and hence the assessment order is bad in law is rejected. 4 ITA No.812/PUN/2025

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

KHANDESH BUILDERS LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 68 and has corelated with the facts of the assessee’s case. The facts admittedly are 14 ITA 749/PUN/2015 Khandesh Builders Ltd. A.Y. 2010-11 that the assessee-company has increased its share capital by issuing 1,50,000 equity shares having face value of Rs. 10/- and share premium of Rs. 160

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

V R AUTO SERVICES,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

160/-(-) Rs. Cash balance as on 08/11/2016 of Rs. 6,32,731/-) is brought to tax under the head Income from other sources as unexplained cash u/s. 68 and tax rates applicable as per provisions of section

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory

MOHAN DAGADU CHOUGALE,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act made addition of Rs.70,11,472/-. 15. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above addition by observing as under: “28. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions filed by the appellant. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee has taken fresh loans from

MR ANIL GOVIND WABLE,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 788/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anil Govind Wable 6106, Sarjepura, Ahmednagar – 414 001 Pan: Aabpw5018K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनामम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar. . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By: Mr Prasad Bhandari & Ravindra Darekar Revenue By: Mr Ramnath P Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/11/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dt. 12/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 12/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) By Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar [For Short ‘Ao’] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [For Short ‘Ay’].

160/-. Immediately thereafter a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on the assessee ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 5 Shri Anil Govind Wable, ITA No.788/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 on 10/10/2017, wherein certain incriminating material was found and impounded by the Revenue. These incriminating documents contained details of cash expenses amounting to ₹94,25,200/- incurred

SHRI VENKATESHWARA PANMASALA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Venkateshwara Panmasala Industries Pvt Ltd, 335, Sangli Kolhapur Byepass Road, Dharangutti Via Jaysingpur – 416 203. Pan: Aaccs5553P. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolhapur . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which Impugns First Appellate Order Dt. 06/03/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/ Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Emerged In Relation To & Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 24/11/2023 Passed By Ld. Assessment Unit, Nfac [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

68 of the Act. Thus, the proceedings in our considered view is suffered for natural justice. 5. The assessing officer & first appellate authority are quasi-judicial authorities and respective proceedings they undertake are quasi-judicial proceedings. The section 136 of the Act however relishes that ‘Proceedings before Income-tax Authorities to be judicial proceedings’. As per the said provision

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

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of share capital issued by the appellant company in spite of various details and case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Bombay High Court and other high courts submitted from time to time. Further, the copies of which are given in Paper Book filed with

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

160 taxmann.com 404 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing Officer, upon receiving CIB information indicating significant share transactions by assessee, issued a notice under section 148 to reopen assessment, since reasons recorded showed that Assessing Officer only wanted to verify more details regarding share transaction, that