HEM KIRAN DIESELS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

68 of the Act. The addition in the hands of assessee has been made at ₹ 80 lakhs. However, during the course of search, information was collected and thereafter, the case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny and it was noted by the Assessing Officer that one Shri Nitin Patil was the key person in three firms i.e. M/s. Ghatge

V J & SONS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

68 of the Act. The addition in the hands of assessee has been made at ₹ 80 lakhs. However, during the course of search, information was collected and thereafter, the case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny and it was noted by the Assessing Officer that one Shri Nitin Patil was the key person in three firms i.e. M/s. Ghatge

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

77,36,950/-. The case of was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, statutory notice(s) under section 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee from time to time. In response thereto, the assessee‟s authorized representative appeared and furnished the relevant details/ documents as required/ called upon such as details

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MUKUND MANOHAR SANGAMNERKAR, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1092/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Mukund Manohar Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.09/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1092/Pun/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukund Manohar Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Abhay A. Avchat Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

77,768 (FD with Bank of Baroda of Rs 1,20,41,210 and Prabodh share investment of Rs 16,36,558)u/s 68 of the Act only on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the source. As discussed earlier, for the purpose of easy understanding of the provision, the section

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. DHULE ZILHA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DHULE, DHULE

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

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

section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involves a substantial question of law. 5 ITA No.769/PUN/2024, AY 2020-21 11. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the revenue is, hereby, dismissed.” The ratio laid down in above cited decisions is that credits in account books which pertained to earlier

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 68 is called for. Since the assessee has placed the contract note, payment through cheques identifying the company whose shares were transacted, the genuineness of claim of long term capital gain should not have been doubted. We do not find merit in these contentions of the assessee in the light of the facts that there is prevalent practice

SATARA EDUCATION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. DCIT (E) CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1054/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Satara Education Society, Vs. Dcit (E) Circle, Pune. 148, Mangalwar Peth, Satara City, Tetali B.O., Tetali, Satara- 415002. Pan : Aabts9280K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari : Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Laws & On Facts In Confirming The Appellant'S Income Assessed By The Learned Ao Amounting To Rs.11,68,77,245/- Instead Of Returned Income Of "Nil" As Declared By Appellant.

section 143(1)(a) of the ITA, 1961; thereby violating the principal of natural justice. As such, the appellant contends that the order passed u/s 143(1) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. The learned AO computed appellant's income of Rs.11,68,77

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

68 (prior to 2012 amendment), primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate a credit/credit entry (Para-8.2) b) Mere proving identity insufficient, its capacity or credit worthiness not established (Para-8.3) c) AO duty bound to investigate all aspects [Para – 11 (ii)] d) AO ought to conduct independent enquiry to verify genuineness (Para - 9) e) As per facts, Assessee

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

68 (prior to 2012 amendment), primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate a credit/credit entry (Para-8.2) b) Mere proving identity insufficient, its capacity or credit worthiness not established (Para-8.3) c) AO duty bound to investigate all aspects [Para – 11 (ii)] d) AO ought to conduct independent enquiry to verify genuineness (Para - 9) e) As per facts, Assessee

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

68 (prior to 2012 amendment), primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate a credit/credit entry (Para-8.2) b) Mere proving identity insufficient, its capacity or credit worthiness not established (Para-8.3) c) AO duty bound to investigate all aspects [Para – 11 (ii)] d) AO ought to conduct independent enquiry to verify genuineness (Para - 9) e) As per facts, Assessee

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

77 taxmann.com 285 - SC) for lack of requisite inquiry into the increase of share capital including premium received by the assessee and non-application of mind by the AO. For ease of reference, relevant caption note of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in the said case (70 taxmann.com 124) is reproduced as under : "Section 68

VISHAL ASHOK CHUGERA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 68. 6. The learned CIT(A), Pune erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,45,53,000/- u/s 68 of ITA, 1961 with the observation that, appellant failed to substantiate identity, the genuineness of the transactions, and the creditworthiness of lenders with documentary evidence without appreciating that, appellant has provided PAN, Address

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

68 of the Act by observing as under : “7. Further on perusal, the assessee was seen to have shown an opening balance in loans/ liability to the tune of Rs.2,66,36,192/-. Out of which 1,77,96,343/- was seen to be secured loans from banks and Rs.88,39,849/- out of the unsecured loans. The assessee

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

68 of the Act by observing as under : “7. Further on perusal, the assessee was seen to have shown an opening balance in loans/ liability to the tune of Rs.2,66,36,192/-. Out of which 1,77,96,343/- was seen to be secured loans from banks and Rs.88,39,849/- out of the unsecured loans. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

68 of the Act. 1) Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 2) CIT vs. Rathi Finlease Ltd. (Madhya Pradesh HC) 3) Par Excellence Leasing and Financial Services (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (Delhi ITAT) 4) J.J. Development (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, Kolkata 5) Advance Power Infra Tech Ltd. vs DCIT (Kolkata ITAT) 6) CIT vs. Korlay trading co. Ltd. (Calcutta

SWAMINI MAHILA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2533/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Swamini Mahila Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha S. Ward-12(3), Pune. Maryadit, Survey No.272, Sainagar Gourav Bunglow, Lohagaon, Near Uttareshwar Mandir, Pune – 411047. Pan: Aakas1168G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16, Dated 19.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144B Of The

77,91,516 as against the returned income filed in response to notice U/s 148 of Rs. NIL. Assessment is invalid 2. The impugned assessment order and demand notice may kindly be held as invalid and it should be quashed. 3. The impugned assessment order may kindly be held as invalid and bad in law for following The notice issued

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

Section is not turned into an empty ritual. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 47. In view of our discussion made here-in-above, considering