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 without actual de facto verification of the identity or ascertainment of the active nature of business activity. PAN number is allotted as a facility to revenue to keep track of transactions and thus, the PAN number cannot be blindly

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

68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed\nby the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by\nrespondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries\nwere taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

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

68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed\nby the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by\nrespondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries\nwere taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. [4] On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts of case and in confirming the addition of Rs.8,40,00,000/-, u/s.68 of the IT Act, for the following reasons: (a) Merely on doubt, assumption, presumption

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 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act cannot be attracted to the additional income declared during the course of search. 26. Even otherwise also the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has stated to have obtained loans from various persons as per the seized document. 27. We find

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 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act cannot be attracted to the additional income declared during the course of search. 26. Even otherwise also the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has stated to have obtained loans from various persons as per the seized document. 27. We find

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 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act cannot be attracted to the additional income declared during the course of search. 26. Even otherwise also the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has stated to have obtained loans from various persons as per the seized document. 27. We find

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]

28 which was notice u/s 142 dated 29/09/2017 vide which specific question was asked regarding survey declaration. The assessee replied the said notice vide his letter dated 14/10/2017 which was at page number 31-39 of the paper book. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had explained the AO regarding the survey declaration and how the assessee had shown

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 (Mumbai Trib.)  Hon'ble Amritsar Tribunal in case of Sh. Satbir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Amritsar. (Ι.Τ.Α. No.258/Asr/2022).  Hon'ble Lucknow Tribunal in case of Income-tax Officer, Barabanki v. Kamal Kumar Mishra [2013] 33 taxmann.com 610 (Lucknow Trib.)  Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Roopak Jain Versus ITO, Ward

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

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

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

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

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. There is a delay of 565 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit 2 explaining the reasons for such delay which is partly due to the then prevailing Covid

JYOTI JAYANTRAO INDURKAR,,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

68,423/- and the same is tabulated at page 4 of the assessment order. However, in the computation of income, the assessee had not offered the interest of Rs.70,37,907/- for taxation under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The assessee was asked to furnish details of compensation and interest received. The assessee furnished the order

V E L SOFTWARE LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

28-11-2013. 9. We further find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Mohan Kala & Others 291 ITR 278 has held as under : 12 VEL Software Limited " 15 When and in what circumstances Section 68

SHRIJEET FINANCE P LTD,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

Section 36(l)(via)(d) of the Act while making an addition. 5. The Appellant prays that in the interest of justice the additional evidences may be admitted and the issue may be decided after considering the additional evidences. The Appellant relies on the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case