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, 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, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

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

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

68 has been referred but\nthereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of\nthe Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in\nthis regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon'ble High\nCourt of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT\n(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\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

68 has been referred but\nthereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of\nthe Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in\nthis regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon'ble High\nCourt of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT\n(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 of the Act for the above amount. The appellant has submitted that all three ingredients such as, credit worthiness, genuineness and the identity of the share applicant have been proved and therefore, the addition should not have been made by the AO. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessment records were also obtained from

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom), he submitted that the\nHon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where DMAT account and\ncontract note showed details of share transaction and the Assessing Officer had not\nproved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not\nbe treated as unaccounted income under section 68

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom), he submitted that the\nHon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where DMAT account and\ncontract note showed details of share transaction and the Assessing Officer had not\nproved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not\nbe treated as unaccounted income under section 68

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 to the additional income declared amounting to Rs.1,24,26,820/-. 52. After hearing both sides we find the above grounds are identical to the ground Nos.2 to 6 raised by the assessee in ITA No.1403/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed

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 to the additional income declared amounting to Rs.1,24,26,820/-. 52. After hearing both sides we find the above grounds are identical to the ground Nos.2 to 6 raised by the assessee in ITA No.1403/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed

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 to the additional income declared amounting to Rs.1,24,26,820/-. 52. After hearing both sides we find the above grounds are identical to the ground Nos.2 to 6 raised by the assessee in ITA No.1403/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom), he submitted that the\nHon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where DMAT account and\ncontract note showed details of share transaction and the Assessing Officer had not\nproved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not\nbe treated as unaccounted income under section 68

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

54,87,490/- after claiming deduction of Rs.2,84,42,603/- u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 17.12.2014, during which certain papers were impounded which indicated that the actual work in progress was much higher

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

54,87,490/- after claiming deduction of Rs.2,84,42,603/- u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 17.12.2014, during which certain papers were impounded which indicated that the actual work in progress was much higher

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

54,87,490/- after claiming deduction of Rs.2,84,42,603/- u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 17.12.2014, during which certain papers were impounded which indicated that the actual work in progress was much higher

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

54,87,490/- after claiming deduction of Rs.2,84,42,603/- u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 17.12.2014, during which certain papers were impounded which indicated that the actual work in progress was much higher

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

54,87,490/- after claiming deduction of Rs.2,84,42,603/- u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 17.12.2014, during which certain papers were impounded which indicated that the actual work in progress was much higher

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

54 taxmann.com 108, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where DMAT account and contract note showed details of share transaction and Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section 68

ASHOK HIRACHAND SHAH,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.812/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Hirachand Shah, Assessing Officer, Plot No. 4, Mangal Bunglow, Ward – 2, Panvel Road No. 5, Sector No. 19, Vs. New Panvel, Tal.-Panvel-410206 Pan : Acdps4800M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of 17-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Denial Of Natural Justice & Proper Opportunity The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Appellant Was Denied Proper Opportunity & Natural Justice During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Called For Information At The Far End Of The Assessment Proceedings On 19/11/2018 & Despite The Appellant'S Authorized Representative Submitting The Details On 19/12/2018, The Ao Failed To Discuss Or Consider The Same. The Matter Ought To Have Been Remanded Back For Fresh Adjudication To Allow Proper Analysis Of The Transactions. 2. Addition Without Specifying The Section The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- Made By The Ao Without Specifying The Section Under Which The Addition Was Made. The Non-Mention Of The Specific Section Renders The Assessment Order Bad In Law, As It Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice & Transparency In Taxation. 3. Failure To Discharge Onus Under Section 69A

54,107/- on account of undisclosed interest income vide his order dated 10.12.2018 passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the above additions made by the Ld. AO. There was non-compliance by the assessee to the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC