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

68 has been referred but thereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of the Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in this regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

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

68 has been referred but thereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of the Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in this regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

section 68 are perverse and are clearly unsustainable. [Para 23] • PAN Numbers are allotted on the basis of applications

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

23,93,990/-. Thereafter, assessment under section u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153B was\ncompleted on 30.11.2016 accepting the total income returned.\n2.\nAs per the information in possession of this office, the assessee had sold his investment in penny stocks\nof M/s PFL Infotech Ltd, Hyderabad (PFLIL) during FY 2014-15. Further, it was stated that the company PFLIL

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

23,93,990/-. Thereafter, assessment under section u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153B was\ncompleted on 30.11.2016 accepting the total income returned.\n\n2. As per the information in possession of this office, the assessee had sold his investment in penny stocks\nof M/s PFL Infotech Ltd, Hyderabad (PFLIL) during FY 2014-15. Further, it was stated that the company PFLIL

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

Section 68 as amended wef from 2013. The said amendment provides that the in case of closely held Company the explanation given by such company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory unless the resident shareholder offers an explanation offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum and such explanation is found to be satisfactory

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 68 of the Act, the onus of proof lies with the assessee to explain the nature and source of sums credited in the books of account. Since the assessee in the instant case has failed to furnish the documentary evidence to prove the nature and source of such income during the course of search action, post-search action

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN, NANDURBAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 68 of the Act, the onus of proof lies with the assessee to explain the nature and source of sums credited in the books of account. Since the assessee in the instant case has failed to furnish the documentary evidence to prove the nature and source of such income during the course of search action, post-search action

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 68 of the Act, the onus of proof lies with the assessee to explain the nature and source of sums credited in the books of account. Since the assessee in the instant case has failed to furnish the documentary evidence to prove the nature and source of such income during the course of search action, post-search action

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

23,93,990/-. Thereafter, assessment under section u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153B was\ncompleted on 30.11.2016 accepting the total income returned.\n\n2. As per the information in possession of this office, the assessee had sold his investment in penny stocks\nof M/s PFL Infotech Ltd, Hyderabad (PFLIL) during FY 2014-15. Further, it was stated that the company PFLIL

M/S. GREAT FORTUNE INVESTMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2017 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Great Fortune Investments & The Assistant Commissioner Of Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Shop No.6, Rushiraj Heights, Near Cirlce-1, Nashik. Nmc Water Tank, Parijat Nagar, Mahatma Nagar, Nahik. Pan: Aaccg 6406 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2022

section 23 as upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Delite Enterprises (P) Ltd. V. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 245 (Mum). Accordingly, where the Rent Control Act is applicable only the standard rent is to be taken as the annual letting value. In the absence of standard rent the municipal ratable value is to be taken

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

23,642/- in the returned income of the assessee.” Unquote. Submission of Ld. Authorised Representative (ld.AR): 3. The Ld.AR of the assessee filed a factual paper book. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had declared undisclosed stock of Rs.30,01,499/- during the survey conducted on 19/12/2014. The Ld.AR submitted that the said stock has been shown in the Profit

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

68. 2.3 Without prejudice, the Ld.AR further submitted that AO has erred in invoking amended section 115BBE and taxing the additions at 60%. Ld.AR submitted that the amendments were made on 15/12/2016 whereas the transactions took place prior to December 2016. 2.4 Ld.AR relied on following case laws:  “Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of 01-02 Commissioner

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

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

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

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

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

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

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

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

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

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

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