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. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.” 25. As mentioned earlier, even the Ld. CIT(A) in the body of the order has also relied on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bajargan

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. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.” 25. As mentioned earlier, even the Ld. CIT(A) in the body of the order has also relied on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bajargan

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO. ,NANDED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , NANDED

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D are not applicable and consequently, tax rate u/s 115BBE is also not applicable. 4.8 The Hon‟be Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Bajargan Traders [2017] 86

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO.,LATUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D are not applicable and consequently, tax rate u/s 115BBE is also not applicable. 4.8 The Hon‟be Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Bajargan Traders [2017] 86

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 of the Act is amended to provide that the nature and source of any sum, whether in form of loan or borrowing, or any other (lability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider

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

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D are not applicable and consequently, tax rate u/s 115BBE is also not applicable. 10.1 The Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Bajargan Traders [2017] 86

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 are not applicable and consequently, tax rate u/s 115BBE is also not applicable. 5.4.1. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Bajargan Traders [2017] 86

GRUHA NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CRICLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 68 as the assessee could not prove genuineness of the unsecured loan taken and undemeath sources for making these investments. The assessee no doubt has produced bank statement/confirmation of the entities from which the money found its place in the bank account of the assessee to be further used in its business but the genuineness of these transactions

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

BHUSHAN UTTAMRAO BACHHAV,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

68 of the I.T. Act 1961 being made by both the lower authorities in violation of principles of natural justice the same is bad in law and void ab initio and hence the same may please be deleted. 5. Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal and by way of an alternate submission in the matter, the appellant submits that

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

section 68 would indicate that when any money is found to be credited in the books of the assessee it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness. 16.3 The detailed analysis of evidences available on record clears any iota of doubt about the spurious nature of such transactions

MR. MAHENDRA MOHINIRAJ GANDHE,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE , AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.413/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr.Mahendra Mohiniraj V The Assistant Gandhe, S Commissioner Of Income 270/31, Manisha Banglow, Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Professor Colony, Ahmednagar. Savedi Road, Ahmednagar – 414003. Pan: Aaypg 2983J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 21.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

86[or second proviso] shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.” 4.1 Thus, the Section 68

KOLHAPUR TIMBER AND FURNITURE MART,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

Section 68 has no application as it's not a case of Cash Credit and alleged excess Stock Source is explained. Before CIT(A), Assessee made Submission that It's a Business Income and Provisions of Sec. 115BBE is not applicable, also placed reliance on Jurisdictional Pune ITAT decision, However CIT(A) confirmed addition u/s68 r.w.s.115BBE. Pune ITAT following

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

86 ITR 439)wherein it was held that even if there was an agreement between the assessee and its agents for payments of certain amounts, assuming there was such payment, that did not bind the Income-Tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the assessee‟s business. In this case

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

86,188/-. There can be some variations in the projected figures with the actual ones but it is not accepted that the projected figures do not match with the actual ones at any stage. This fact establishes that the projected figures are imaginary and hypothetical. The C.A has projected the figures as per his own whims and fancies and without

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

86,188/-. There can be some variations in the projected figures with the actual ones but it is not accepted that the projected figures do not match with the actual ones at any stage. This fact establishes that the projected figures are imaginary and hypothetical. The C.A has projected the figures as per his own whims and fancies and without

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

86,188/-. There can be some variations in the projected figures with the actual ones but it is not accepted that the projected figures do not match with the actual ones at any stage. This fact establishes that the projected figures are imaginary and hypothetical. The C.A has projected the figures as per his own whims and fancies and without

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

68 of the Act and citing a number of decisions of various Courts / ITAT‟s contended that it is a settled position that to treat an unexplained cash credit under the said section, the AO has to satisfied that the assessee could not prove any or all of the criteria i.e. (i) identity of the creditor, (ii) Capacity