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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

Section 68 of the Act. 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. (RFL) as long term capital gain and claimed exemption under the Act. Respondent had claimed to have purchased this scrip at Rs.3.12/- per share in the year 2003 and sold the same in the year 2005 for Rs.155.04/- per share

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:

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee’s only business is land developing and trading in real estate. During the course of search, statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during which the page Nos.22 to 47 of the seized documents are loan taken from

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:

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee’s only business is land developing and trading in real estate. During the course of search, statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during which the page Nos.22 to 47 of the seized documents are loan taken from

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:

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee’s only business is land developing and trading in real estate. During the course of search, statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during which the page Nos.22 to 47 of the seized documents are loan taken from

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

68. 34. He submitted that the above decisions collectively emphasize that the Assessing Officer must conduct independent enquiries and provide specific evidence linking the assessee to any alleged bogus transactions rather than relying solely on generalized investigation reports and third party statements. He submitted that without concrete or corroborative evidence such as adverse statements from stock exchange authorities or proof

M/S MAULI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA LIMITED,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act in respect of the impugned transaction i.e. the addition of Rs.12,47,000/ being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE,, ICHALKARANJI vs. NIRANJAN RAJENDRA SHETE,, KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.664/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Nilawati Neminath Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8442 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Niranjan Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Botps 0314 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.666/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Manisha Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8514 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022

68 of the Act. This tribunals recent co-ordinate bench in Smt.Beena Shammi Chaudhary vs. ITO in ITA No.1849/PUN/2018 for A.Y.2009-10 decided on 17.02.2022 has accepted Revenue’s identical arguments involving such bogus long term capital gains as under:- “9. Now I turn to contention of the ld. AR on section 47

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - ICHALKRANJI, ICHALKRANJI vs. MANISHA RAJENDRA SHETE,, KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.664/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Nilawati Neminath Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8442 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Niranjan Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Botps 0314 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.666/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Manisha Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8514 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022

68 of the Act. This tribunals recent co-ordinate bench in Smt.Beena Shammi Chaudhary vs. ITO in ITA No.1849/PUN/2018 for A.Y.2009-10 decided on 17.02.2022 has accepted Revenue’s identical arguments involving such bogus long term capital gains as under:- “9. Now I turn to contention of the ld. AR on section 47

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE,, ICHALKARANJI vs. NILAWATI NEMINATH SHETE,, KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.664/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Nilawati Neminath Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8442 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Niranjan Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Botps 0314 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.666/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Manisha Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8514 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022

68 of the Act. This tribunals recent co-ordinate bench in Smt.Beena Shammi Chaudhary vs. ITO in ITA No.1849/PUN/2018 for A.Y.2009-10 decided on 17.02.2022 has accepted Revenue’s identical arguments involving such bogus long term capital gains as under:- “9. Now I turn to contention of the ld. AR on section 47

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

RAVINDRA DADA PAIL,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.2881/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Ravindra Dada Patil, The Acit, Circle-2, Flat No.607/608, Signature Vs Kolhapur. Apartment, Serene Meadow, . Anandwali, Nashik. Pan: Addpp 4442 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur’S Order Dated 14.11.2017 Passed In Case No.Kop/267/2016- 17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

68 in the hands of the appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. Mr.Shringte vehemently contended that the assessee has filed all the relevant evidence discharging his onus of proving genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned unexplained cash credits before both the lower authorities and therefore, the impugned addition made after rejecting his explanation that the same

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

68 of the Act i.e. the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transaction. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the various findings given by the Assessing Officer deleted the addition, which is not correct. 24. So far as the validity of re-assessment proceedings is concerned, he submitted that the Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

47,555/- as unexplained credits invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act only on the ground that

DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

47,555/- as unexplained credits invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act only on the ground that

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

section 68 are absent, the addition made is 9 prima facie unjustified. He submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC without understanding the evidence on record in a very cryptic order has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is not correct. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing

RAHUL NEMGONDA PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 68 of the Act\nas unexplained cash credit. He, however, contended that the addition\nshould be restricted only to peak credit to the extent of Rs.15,27,000/-.\nHe argued that bringing to tax the gross amount of cash deposits would\nresult in double taxation of the same income as the amounts withdrawn\nwould be always available against

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

47) of IT Act, 1961. In absence of any satisfactory details, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the entire transaction appears to be sham. 5. The Assessing Officer analyzed the share price of M/s Anukaran Commercial Enterprises Ltd and M/s. Shree Ganesh Spinners Ltd on different dates for comparison and observed that there are huge changes in prices

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

KHANDESH BUILDERS LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

47,956/- are fictitious, fabricated, false and bogus. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. In ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved by sustaining of addition