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

price is more than the stamp duty value of the property, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no case for making addition u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC is set aside on this issue and the grounds of appeal No.7

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

cash credit. I further find that Hon'ble jurisdictional\nHigh Court in the case of Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (supra)\nalso held that when assessee discharged his onus by establishing\nthat transactions were fair and transparent and all relevant details\nwith regard to transfer furnished by Income Tax Authority and the\nTribunal have also took the notice of fact that

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act is\nhereby confirmed. This ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.”\n\n19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nrecord placed before us. In Ground No.1, assessee has raised\nthe issue that 1d.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of\nRs.97,61,190/- made by the AO denying the claim

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act is\nhereby confirmed. This ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.”\n19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nrecord placed before us. In Ground No.1, assessee has raised\nthe issue that 1d.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of\nRs.97,61,190/- made by the AO denying the claim

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

unexplained credits of unsecured loan\ntransactions of Rs.11,59,98,119/- as per the provisions of section 68\nof the Act. However, the same was not done and the AO failed to do\nthe same during the course of assessment proceedings.\n04. In view of the above, it is found that no verification on the\naforesaid issue has been done

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

cash and liquidity\nmanagement, support for business analysis,\n(Vol 2)\nAssistance with the benchmarking and business\nimprovement inputs\n9\nLegal affairs &\ninsurance\nMonitor and coordinate all corporate and compliance\nmatters,\nPg No. 1167\nto 1191\nNo\nManagement of Compliance Management System,\nAdvice in drafting regulations and resolutions, etc.\nAdvice on insurance matters, etc.\n(Vol 2)\n10\nRisk\nmanagement

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain to the sale and purchase of the shares of M/s PFL\nInfotech Ltd., like DEMAT account statement, copy of bank statement

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

transferred for investment in fixed assets. Hence it is hereby concluded that the funds received by the assessee-company from the Pranav International Ltd., Dubai to the tune of Rs.1,62,84,153/- in FY 2016-17 are unexplained credit in the books of the assessee. Accordingly, the unexplained credit of Rs.1,62,84,153/- is added to the total

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

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and made addition of Rs.24,11,47,250/- to the total income of the assessee. 9. Before the CIT(A), the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer

MR. ABRAR FAKIRMOHMMAD SHAIKH,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.208/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Abrar Fakirmohmmad Vs. Ito (International Shaikh, Taxation), Nashik. At Manakeshwar, North Solapur, Tal. Bhoom, Barshi, Solapur- 413213. Pan : Chfps0191E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual & Non-Resident Indian In Terms Of Income-Tax Purpose. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 05.07.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,85,740/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, No Scrutiny Assessment Was Made. Subsequently, On Receipt Of The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.1,20,40,000/- With Solapur District Co- Operative Central Bank, The Assessing Officer Formed An Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Had Issued A Notice U/S 148 On 31.03.2021. In Response To Said Notice U/S 148, The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income On 03.04.2021 Disclosing Same Income As Declared In The Original Return Of Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 20.12.2022 Passed U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs.1,23,98,740/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs.1,21,80,000/- Being The Amount Of Cash Deposits In The Bank I.E. Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,20,40,000/- Made With Solapur District Co-

credited to the appellant respective bank accounts by FDs maturity proceeds. As regards, the deposits of Rs.20,00,000/-, it was submitted that it was made out of the cash borrowed from his brother, namely, Saber Fakir Shaikh. It is further submitted that the said cash was withdrawn by his brother 4 in Axis Bank bearing Account No.15677. The affidavit

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

unexplained cash credit if the\ndocumentation is in order & there is no allegation of\nmanipulation by SEBI or the BSE. Denial of right of cross-\nexamination is a fatal flaw which renders the assessment\norder a nullity INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nKamla Devi S. Doshi V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward\n16(3) (1), Ι.Τ.Α. No.1957/Mum/2015 Assessment Year:\n2006

SONAL ASHISH SHAH,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2541/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15

unexplained cash credit’ made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A). 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the detailed paper book running into 711 pages and also referring to the documents to prove that the Equity shares of the alleged company

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

credits received from M/s. Divyadristhi Merchants Pvt. Ltd. an amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- requires to be deleted as it represents the opening balance as on 01.04.2011. B. As regards, the addition on account of alleged receipt of on- money consideration on sale of plot at Paud Road. Based on the notings contained in page no.2 of bundle no.1

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

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

transferring the jurisdiction of the person, the transferee Income-\ntax Authorities as mentioned in section 116 of the Act shall exercise all\nthe powers and perform the functions as stipulated in the Act in respect\nof all the proceedings which may be commenced after the date of such\norder in respect of any year and such power includes passing

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

prices of M/s. Anukaran Commercial Enterprises Ltd has been jagged up through cartel of interlinked companies controlled and managed by entry operators for the purpose of providing accommodation entry of 5 bogus long term capital gain. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

credit balance. 3 9. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,700/- made on account of interest received on advances given in cash on Hundi to Vikas Industries, even when interest calculation is mentioned in seized documents which clearly demonstrate that