ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

68,389/-\nRs.2,18,655/-\nRs.90,472/-\nRs.31,31,51,116/-\n3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who\nwithout admitting the appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the\nground that the assessee has not filed the return of income as well as not\npaid an amount equal to the amount of advance

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

SARIKA ASHOK SATAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1952/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

208 ITR 465 (Cal), it has been held that, the fact that the amount is received by account payee cheque does not make it sacrosanct. It has also been held in CIT vs. Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 300 (Cal), that if only list is given of creditors but identity and creditworthiness not proved by the Assessee

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

208 ITR 465). There is no doubt about the modus operandi of the penny stocks in general and about the fact that the appellant is a beneficiary of bogus LTCG on penny stock. In an economy where unaccounted income is a big menace, tax evaders make all efforts to bring their unaccounted income back to their books of account, without

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

PODDAR FININ COSULTANCY PVT.LTD,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, PANVEL

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1007/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 68. A.Y. 2014-15, Poddar Finin Consultancy P.Ltd., 4. Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (ITA 79/2016) (Delhi) - where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that addition made u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans was justified, where initial onus of proving the creditworthiness of the lenders was not discharged by the assessee. 5. Narcsh Chandra Jain

PARAS JAVERILAL JAIN,,DHULE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and 68 of the IT Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the donor the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the donor. In view of this fact, through the appellant is able to establish the identity of the donor

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Leelavati Vijaykumar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Kotecha, 2(1), Nashik. 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Alvpk4435H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case Vide Ita Nos.1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13, Order Dated 26.04.2018 Had Adjudicated The Issue Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Above Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, On Miscellaneous

68. 3. To delete the interest charged u/s 234A, B, C and D and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 3 [D] General: - • The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This appeal is filed in time and may please be allowed in full. • A Detailed paper book along with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

208 has failed to pay such tax or— (i) the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less

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.

208 ITR 465). There is no doubt about the modus operandi of the penny stocks in general and about the fact that the appellant is a beneficiary of bogus LTCG on penny stock. In an economy where unaccounted income is a -big menace, tax evaders make all efforts to bring their unaccounted income back to their books of account, without

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A of the Act is not correct. The Assessing Officer