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

68.\n\n34. He submitted that the above decisions collectively emphasize that the\nAssessing Officer must conduct independent enquiries and provide specific\nevidence linking the assessee to any alleged bogus transactions rather than relying\n\nsolely on generalized investigation reports and third party statements. He\nsubmitted that without concrete or corroborative evidence such as adverse\nstatements from stock exchange authorities

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

68.\n\n34. He submitted that the above decisions collectively emphasize that the\nAssessing Officer must conduct independent enquiries and provide specific\nevidence linking the assessee to any alleged bogus transactions rather than relying\nsolely on generalized investigation reports and third party statements. He\nsubmitted that without concrete or corroborative evidence such as adverse\nstatements from stock exchange authorities

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

68,900/-, whereas on Page 145 of dairy A-6, total payment found only at Rs.24,83,292/-. Thus, declaration was insisted of difference amount at Rs.63,85,608/-and obtained. (d) Labour charges found recorded at Rs.2,16,14,000/-, whereas on Page 147-149 of dairy A-6, total payment found only at Rs.89,10,871/-. Thus, declaration

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. AKASH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

section 68 of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A), Aurangabad be quashed and that the order of the A.O. be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any other ground at the time of hearing.” 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include

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

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

section which bars issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, clearly apply to the facts of the present case and therefore, notice was barred by limitation. 22. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that similar view has been taken by various Courts, according to which

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

220/- and Rs.1,00,000/- u/s.68 by way of undisclosed cash credit in the bank account even though the Appellant is not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore, section 68

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

220/- and Rs.1,00,000/- u/s.68 by way of undisclosed cash credit in the bank account even though the Appellant is not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore, section 68

SHIVAM MULTISPECIALITY AND ACCIDENT CARE CENTRE PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.696/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shivam Multispecialty & Accident Care Income Tax Officer, Centre Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 6(1), Pune Opp. Manali Resort, Near Dsk Dream City, Vs. Next To Loni Kalbhor Toll Naka, Pune-Solapur Mumbai Bypass Road, Fursungi, Pune-412308, Maharashtra Pan : Aapcs5482A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Dandgaval Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

220 returned by the assessee as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried

ACIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SARVOTTAM CONSTRUCTION, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

220/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.11,06,49,590/- u/s 68 of the Act relating to the amount of unsecured loan shown by the 3 assessee and Rs.1,07,06,628/- towards disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee as interest paid on above unsecured loan. 4. After considering the reply of the assessee, & the remand report

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

section 19 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 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

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

220/-, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

220/-, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

220/-, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68

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’).

section 68 of the Act. Hence, there could not be any addition u/s.68 of the Act even on merits on protective basis or on substantive basis. Hence, we hold that the Id. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made u/s.68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee company on merits also. Accordingly, the ground

NIKHIL VIJENDRA JAIN,PUNE vs. NFAC, DELHI/ JURISDICTIONAL AO, ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

220/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme on the following issues: 2 “S. No. Issues i. Business Expenses” 3. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed from the Balance Sheet that the assessee has received unsecured loan of Rs.54,27,957/- from the following persons: “Name of lender Amount Arti

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court