TARA CONSTRUCTIONS ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 68. The legitimacy of the so called gifts itself is not proved and it is as such highly suspicious. The AO has elaborately brought out the modus operandi of the appellant. He has verified the transactions and found out that the same are proved to be non-genuine. The plea of the Appellant that on filing

SARIKA ASHOK SATAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1952/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 68 addition as per Ivan Sing V/s. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 128 (Bom.) Learned counsel further argued that the assessee had paid the impugned alleged unsecured loans to the creditor parties through her sisters-in-law in subsequent assessment year. He lastly argued that the by lower authorities have not restricted impugned additions to the extent

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

801/- under section 68 of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.25,60,000/- u/s 68

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 68. In the case of Usha Chandresh Shah Vs. ITO (2014-TIOL-1459-ITAT-MUM),the Hon‟ble ITAT Mumbai held that the shares of the company was declared as "Penny Stock" by SEBI and the broker Sanju Kabra, (through whom the shares were sold by the assessee) was indicted for manipulating the prices of penny stock shares

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 68 of the Act which has been upheld by the Ld. CITIA). The Ld. AO found that during the demonetization period, M/s. AB Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. had transferred Rs. 10,00,000 to the bank account of the assessee, M/s. Rathod Jewellers along with other beneficiaries. It is not clear in our mind as to why Atul bora

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while making addition. 9. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the AO, who has reopened the assessment based on the report of the Investment Wing, without further Inquiry or verifying the credentials. 3 Kalavathi Devi Sharma 10. Any other ground which the Assessee may urge either before

SANKET CHAKOR SHAH,WALCHAND NAGAR, INDAPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Saket Chakor Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Behind Post Colony, Walchandnagar, Circle 2(2), Walchandnagar, Indapur, Pune Pune - 413114 Pan : Cqyps4526H Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jyoti Chakor Shah Vs. Dcit, Central New Bazzar Peth Walchandnagar, Circle 2(2), Walchandnagar, Indapur, Pune Pune - 413114 Pan : Bmxps7863M Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31-01-2022

sections 68 or 69 of the Act and consequently charging higher rate of taxation. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and order to delete the addition. 4. Similar is the position regarding the other appeal filed by Jyoti Chakor Shah, who is another joint account holder of the same bank account in whose hands the income shown

JYOI CHAKOR SHAH,WALCHAND NAGAR, INDAPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Saket Chakor Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Behind Post Colony, Walchandnagar, Circle 2(2), Walchandnagar, Indapur, Pune Pune - 413114 Pan : Cqyps4526H Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jyoti Chakor Shah Vs. Dcit, Central New Bazzar Peth Walchandnagar, Circle 2(2), Walchandnagar, Indapur, Pune Pune - 413114 Pan : Bmxps7863M Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31-01-2022

sections 68 or 69 of the Act and consequently charging higher rate of taxation. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and order to delete the addition. 4. Similar is the position regarding the other appeal filed by Jyoti Chakor Shah, who is another joint account holder of the same bank account in whose hands the income shown

THE ITO, WARD-8(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SILICON SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3017/Ahd/2014 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

68 unexplained share capital of Rs.1,56,35,000/-, share application money of Rs.25,00,000/- and share premium of Rs.2,22,65,000/-; respectively. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the Assessing officer had framed his section 144 r.w.s. 147 assessment / reassessment dated 30.11.2011 ex-parte after holding that the assessee had failed to even

PODDAR FININ COSULTANCY PVT.LTD,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, PANVEL

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1007/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 68. A.Y. 2014-15, Poddar Finin Consultancy P.Ltd., 4. Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (ITA 79/2016) (Delhi) - where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that addition made u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans was justified, where initial onus of proving the creditworthiness of the lenders was not discharged by the assessee. 5. Narcsh Chandra Jain

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

801 (SC), the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,62,84,153/- to the total income of the assessee by observing as under: “9….. The explanation of the assessee has been considered but the same is found not acceptable. The assessee-company is trying to state that Pranav International Ltd., Dubai advanced to the assessee-company at Rs.2

PARAS JAVERILAL JAIN,,DHULE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and 68 of the IT Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the donor the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the donor. In view of this fact, through the appellant is able to establish the identity of the donor

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

801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, 198 ITR 147 (Ker.), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer that the sundry creditors were bogus

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry

DNYANDEO LAXMAN RAJALE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.80/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dnyandeo Laxman Rajale, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Plot No.349, Growth Centre, Aurangabad. Mahanagar-1, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad- 431136. Pan : Aaqpr2829E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 29.11.2018 Passed In Case No. Abd/Cit(A)- 2/377/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Denying Section 10(38) Long Term Capital Gains’ Exemption Thereby

section 10(38) long term capital gains’ exemption thereby 2 adding the sum in issue of Rs.1,15,53,749/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. 3. We note from able assistance coming from both the parties as well as after perusing the Assessing Officer’s detailed assessment order that he had declined the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RAKESH MOTILAL SHARMA,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2123 & 2124/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15

801] stating that the said case squarely applied to the cases of Penny Stock frauds perpetrated by the assessee in connivance with the cartel. The AO in para 14.4 of the assessment order held that the financial crime are not committed at spur of the movement but they are executed as a result of well plan strategy after considering various

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RAKESH MOTILAL SHARMA,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2123 & 2124/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15

801] stating that the said case squarely applied to the cases of Penny Stock frauds perpetrated by the assessee in connivance with the cartel. The AO in para 14.4 of the assessment order held that the financial crime are not committed at spur of the movement but they are executed as a result of well plan strategy after considering various

RAJENDRA BABULAL MALU,HUF,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, ICHALKARANJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

section 68 of the Act. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the conclusion reached by the Assessing Officer was confirmed invoking the doctrine of human probabilities placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801