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

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

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

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 68 by the AO on the basis of the bank pass book was invalid. The appellant also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78

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

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

Section 68 as amended wef from 2013. The said amendment provides that the in case of closely held Company the explanation given by such company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory unless the resident shareholder offers an explanation offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum and such explanation is found to be satisfactory

UPPAL SHAH PROP-J K SUGARS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR vs. UPPAL JITENDRA SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

78,763/- Rs.4,59,040/- 2740% 17 21. Although the case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of Share capital / other capital, however, the Assessing Officer without verifying the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors in terms of provisions of section 68

MAHARUDRA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,SONJAMB, NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(2), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

78,500/- under section 68 of the Act. Assessee had deposited cash of 2 Rs.23,78,500/- on 11.11.2016 i.e. during

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

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered – • Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings. • Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, , NASHIK vs. SMT. PRIYA K. JAGTIYANI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KISHOR C. JAGTIYANI, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 1, Nashik …. Vs. Smt. Priya K. Jagtiyani L/H Of Late Kishor Chelaram Jagtiyani Office No.1, Shalimar Towers, Shalimar Chowk, Shivaji Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422001 Pan: Adepj7743C

68,958/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the stamp duty valuation of Basement sold was ₹ 1.44 crores as against the sale value declared by assessee at ₹ 66,51,000/- and observed that the difference of ₹ 78,02,000/- was taxable under section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. AKASH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

section 68 of the Act. Respectfully following the above decisions and facts of the present case, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.4,26,08,528/- made by him. These grounds of appeal are allowed.” Sources of Funds of the Kagliwals: Further, we examined the 16. sources of funds amounting to Rs.4,26,08,528/- invested

SHIVAJI LAXMAN SAHANE,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.89/Pune/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Shivaji Laxman Sahane, The Asst. Commissioner Office No.3, Second Floor, B Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Wing, Sancheti Tower, Ashok Nashik. Stambh, Nashik – 422001. Pan: Aoxps 7118 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Dated 23.11.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 20.03.2015 For A.Y.2012-13 Passed Under Section 143(3)Of The I.T.Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Passed By Cit(A) May Please Be Restored To The File Of Cit(A). 2. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte When An Shivaji Laxman Sahane [A]

section 68 of the amount claimed to be received from Ranganath Dattatreya Gadekar. The ld.DR further submitted that identical facts are involved in A.Y.2012-13. In A.Y.2012-13, the Assessing Officer(AO) has made an addition of Rs.97,78

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

section 68 gets invoked? 2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act (inadvertently mentioned as u/s 68 in assessment order) on account of the FD/investments not recorded in the books of account, without considering

CITIZEN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Citizen Nagari Sahakri Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Nashik. Patsanstha Ltd., 5, Dsouza Colony, Tulip Apartment, College Road, Nashik- 422005. Pan : Aabac1443M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Have Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.74,80,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The It Act, By Disregarding The Detailed Submission Made By The Appellant, Wherein It Was Mentioned That The Case Deposited In Bank Belongs To Identified

78,500/- sustained in the first appeal.” 5. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of M/s.Bhagur Urban Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., in ITA No.561/PUN/2022, it is held that addition made by AO under section 68

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

78,172/- U/s 10(38) by him. He has not stated a thing with respect to the statement of Sh. Jai Kishan Poddar in which he has accepted that facilitation of accommodation entries of long term capital gain/long term capital loss through his share broking firm has been done to few beneficiaries with the help of different accommodation entry operators

MRS. MANJU MADHUSUDAN DHOOT,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1907/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mrs. Manju Madhusudan Dhoot, L/H Of Late. Madhusudan Banshilal Dhoot, Prop. M.S. Electronics Gangapur Gin Compound, Near Keshar Gulab Mangal Karalay Station Road, Ahmednagar-414 001. Pan :Adrpd8696H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar. ……""यथ" / Respondent

78,401/- by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby made an addition of entire

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

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

section 68 by the Finance Bill, 2012 is effective from 01.04.2013 and therefore applicable in relation to AY 2013-14 and subsequent years and not to AY 2011-12. 6.4 The details of the Share application 1 premium money are depicted in the below mentioned table: Sr. Date of Type No. of Nominal Premium Total Total amount No. allotment

SANKET INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1957/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sanket Industries Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), Jalna Flat No.101, Bhoomi Apartment, 1St Floor, Nutan Laxmi Chs, Plot No.9, Jvpd Scheme, Ville Parle (W), N.S. Road, No.8, Mumbai – 400056 Pan: Aafcs6118M Appellant Respondent

78,831/- on delayed payment of Excise Duty for the month of February, 2010 & interest of Rs.62,42,404/- on delayed payment of Excise Duty for the month of March, 20110 was determined to be paid by M/s Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Unit-II, Gut No.186, Dawalwadi, Taluka-Badnapur, Dist. Jalna, engaged in the manufacturing business