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 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.78 lacs representing share capital and share premium. The CIT(A)‟s detailed discussion affirming the assessment findings to this effect reads as under: “6.3 I have considered the facts of the case, the order of the Assessing Officer and the submission of the appellant. The fact discernible from record

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

section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting the\nsale

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

section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting the\nsale

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

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

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 : 7 M/s. Balaji Developers 1. Parasnath Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. v. CPC [ITA No. 151/Kol/2023] dated 06.07.2023. 2. Seema Jagdish Patil v. NHRC [(2022) 139 taxmann.com 249 (Bom)(HC)] 3. C. Nanda Kumar v. UOI [(2017) 396 ITR 21 (AP)] 4. Vishwanthan M. CCIT [WP No. 3227 of 2020 (C)/ Kerala HC] dated

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

section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement reflecting the\nsale

JAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

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

68,435/-. The case was selected for 2 scrutiny under CASS by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) and the assessment came to be completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’ for short) at a loss of Rs.15,18,07,280/- vide order dated

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of its order, after referring-to and relying upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of CIT vs Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra), Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court has concluded that “proper investment means correct investment with intention to earn profit but their lordships have nowhere held positive income. Without prejudice to the above

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

37 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 response thereof, the assessee submitted the details and supporting documentary evidences along with report in Form No. 3CLA. Vide notice u/s 142(1) enclosed with a questionnaire dated 15.03.2021, the assessee was asked to furnish / submit the necessary documents including report given by the DSIR in form no. 3 CL as required under rule

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

37 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 response thereof, the assessee submitted the details and supporting documentary evidences along with report in Form No. 3CLA. Vide notice u/s 142(1) enclosed with a questionnaire dated 15.03.2021, the assessee was asked to furnish / submit the necessary documents including report given by the DSIR in form no. 3 CL as required under rule

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

37 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 response thereof, the assessee submitted the details and supporting documentary evidences along with report in Form No. 3CLA. Vide notice u/s 142(1) enclosed with a questionnaire dated 15.03.2021, the assessee was asked to furnish / submit the necessary documents including report given by the DSIR in form no. 3 CL as required under rule

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

37 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 response thereof, the assessee submitted the details and supporting documentary evidences along with report in Form No. 3CLA. Vide notice u/s 142(1) enclosed with a questionnaire dated 15.03.2021, the assessee was asked to furnish / submit the necessary documents including report given by the DSIR in form no. 3 CL as required under rule

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

37 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 response thereof, the assessee submitted the details and supporting documentary evidences along with report in Form No. 3CLA. Vide notice u/s 142(1) enclosed with a questionnaire dated 15.03.2021, the assessee was asked to furnish / submit the necessary documents including report given by the DSIR in form no. 3 CL as required under rule

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

DASHRATH KISHANRAO CHOUDHARY,GANGAKHED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

37,96,500 + Rs.12,03,000) should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under the provisions of section 68