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:

89,116/- were the cash loans. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to establish its source or in the absence of same to explain as to why Rs.3,35,63,283/- should not be added to the total income of the assessee. On verification of assessee’s submission, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee

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:

89,116/- were the cash loans. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to establish its source or in the absence of same to explain as to why Rs.3,35,63,283/- should not be added to the total income of the assessee. On verification of assessee’s submission, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee

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:

89,116/- were the cash loans. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to establish its source or in the absence of same to explain as to why Rs.3,35,63,283/- should not be added to the total income of the assessee. On verification of assessee’s submission, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992 for non-disclosures\nunder PIT Regulations, 1992. He submitted that the SEBI has also noted that price\nmanipulation in the scrip of M/s PFIL was orchestrated by two connected entities\nand facilitated by their connected broker. The manipulation involved in these two\nentities repeatedly placing buy orders at prices substantially higher

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

89 (Pat) 2. Dhanush General Stores vs CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (CG) 3. Fakir Mohd Haji Hasan vs CIT, 249 ITR 290 (Guj) In view of the law laid down in these cases, the amount of excess stock found during the survey viz. Rs. 30,01,449/- is to be added back in the assessee’s regular income

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

section 68 of the Act. He noted various discrepancies vis-à-vis documentary evidences furnished by the assessee in support of borrowings / credits availed, the details of which are as under: Sr. Name of the Amount of Documents Remarks No creditors Loan available on record 1 Krishnat 97,61,000/- Unsigned copy of No document in support of Eknath

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

section 151(2) r.w.s.149(1)(a) of the Income tax Act 1961.” 5. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that a search and survey operation u/s 132/133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 16.05 2018 by the office of the DDIT (Inv.), Unit 3-(3), Delhi on Dutta and Tyagi group

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

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

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 of the Act for\nthe preceding years (i.e. AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19) and that\nmajority of the unsecured loans are flowing from the preceding\nyears wherein no further loan was taken during the year or\nthat closing balance of loan increased due to interest, it can be\nreasonably said that

MOHAN DAGADU CHOUGALE,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

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 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

89,879/- at normal rate instead of u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The ground Nos.1 and 2 are accordingly partly allowed. 12. Ground No.3 relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.70,11,472/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. 13. Facts of the case, in brief

WILDERNEST BETTER LIVING & MAINTENANCE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.856/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Wildernest Better Living V The Income Tax Officer, Maintenance Co-Operative S Ward-6(1), Pune. Society Limited, Plot No.58, 59 & 60, Woldernest Society, Khadakwasla, Taluka Haveli, Pune – 411024. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Arpit Dnyandeo Dambhare & Shri Deepak Sasar – Ca’S Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22 Dated

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

DCIT, CIRCLE- 5, PUNE vs. SHRI AMEETSINGH A RAJPAL, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

68 unexplained cash credit addition involving unsecured loans of Rs.2,39,70,864/- , 1,89,08,000/- and Rs. 4,84,66,000/- followed by the latter issue of assessee to cash deposits the tune of Rs. 89,97,340/-, Rs. 27,10,000 and Rs. 4,38,288/- ,assessment year-wise, respectively. The Assessing Officer had invoked section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 5, PUNE vs. SHRI AMEETSINGH A RAJPAL, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

68 unexplained cash credit addition involving unsecured loans of Rs.2,39,70,864/- , 1,89,08,000/- and Rs. 4,84,66,000/- followed by the latter issue of assessee to cash deposits the tune of Rs. 89,97,340/-, Rs. 27,10,000 and Rs. 4,38,288/- ,assessment year-wise, respectively. The Assessing Officer had invoked section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 5, PUNE vs. SHRI AMEETSINGH A RAJPAL, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

68 unexplained cash credit addition involving unsecured loans of Rs.2,39,70,864/- , 1,89,08,000/- and Rs. 4,84,66,000/- followed by the latter issue of assessee to cash deposits the tune of Rs. 89,97,340/-, Rs. 27,10,000 and Rs. 4,38,288/- ,assessment year-wise, respectively. The Assessing Officer had invoked section

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

89,646/- is liable to be disallowed in the hands of the appellant company.” 16.1 No new evidence has been produced by the appellant before us. The appellant has not rebutted the finding of the fact given by the CIT(A) in the order. Since the order of the 7 Sanket Industries Limited excise department was not in the name

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI vs. JAIKISHAN TEXTILE TRADERS LLP, ICHALKARANJI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Vs. Jaikishan Textile Traders Llp, Ichalkaranji Shop No.1, Cloth & Yarn Mer. Asso. Bldg, Kagwade Mala, Ichalkaranji – 416115 Pan : Aamfj9148E Appellant Respondent

section 68 addition could be made in its hands as per Kapil Alcotech LLP vs. DCIT, ITA No.557/PUN/2024, order dated 09.08.2024. “41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed by both the sides. We find the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992 for non-disclosures under PIT Regulations, 1992. He submitted that the SEBI has also noted that price manipulation in the scrip of M/s PFIL was orchestrated by two connected entities and facilitated by their connected broker. The manipulation involved in these two entities repeatedly placing buy orders at prices substantially higher