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

68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed\nby the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by\nrespondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries\nwere taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

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

68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed\nby the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by\nrespondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries\nwere taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. MORYA ASSOCIATES, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKAR SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

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. In view of above discussion addition of Rs.1,18,82,797/- made by the AO stand confirmed. These grounds are therefore dismissed.” 39. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 173 of the paper book submitted that the amount of Rs.1,18,82,797/- was credited to the capital account of the partner by debiting

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and particular withdrawal/repayment is not available on the date of subsequent credit. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) has admitted that

LALIT PARASRAM MEGHANI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD1(1), , NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.771/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lalit Parasram Meghani, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.18, Bunglow No.13, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Walnut Creek, Gangapur Road, Sawarkar Nagar S.O., Bhonsala Military School, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Agdpm9435C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sanjay Dhivare- Addl.Cit(Dr) – Virtual Hearing Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For

section 68 of the Act. 6. Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is into the business of construction of flats. The project commenced during the year under consideration and assessee received ITA No.771/PUN/2024 [A] advances from his customers. When the construction of flat was completed, they were handed over to the customers from time to time and formal

VIDYA ONLINE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

79 to 96 clearly demonstrate that the alleged liability of ₹37.50 was credited during F.Y. 2010-11 on 09.06.2009 when the assessee company entered into the contract with M/s. EBZ Online Private Limited for purchase of Business of Customers, Contracts and Hardware and amount of ₹37.50 lakh was accounted as capital work in progress payable to M/s. EBZ Online Private

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 Income-tax Act,1961. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penal proceedings under section 274 read with Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961 are initiated separately. 5 ITA Nos.264 & 23/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 10.3 From the above all facts, verification of the case, above

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

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

68 of the Income-tax Act,1961. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penal proceedings under section 274 read with Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961 are initiated separately. 5 ITA Nos.264 & 23/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 10.3 From the above all facts, verification of the case, above

AMIT KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1792/Pun/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 68 of the Act as the assessee has discharged primary onus by explaining the nature and source of the alleged sum received from JMCPL. Finding of ld.CIT(A) is reversed and ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.1799/PUN/2019 : 10. From

KAILASH KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI, L/H OF LAT KANHAIYALAL V. GIDWANI,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1792/Pun/2019 Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 68 of the Act as the assessee has discharged primary onus by explaining the nature and source of the alleged sum received from JMCPL. Finding of ld.CIT(A) is reversed and ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.1799/PUN/2019 : 10. From

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

79,227/-. The assessee requested the\nAssessing Officer to provide reasons for re-opening of the case which were\nprovided to the assessee on 10.05.2018. Further, the assessee vide letter dated\n01.06.2018 objected to the reopening of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the\nAct in this case which were rejected by the Assessing Officer by passing a\nspeaking order