ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS challan. From the various details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that these were not sufficient to verify its genuineness. The assessee has not provided the complete addresses of the parties to carry out the third party verification. He observed that the different vendors of the assessee have same PAN and he reproduced some of the instances

H C SARASWAT TOBACCO CO.PVT.LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKARANJI ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

TDS has been made and is reflected in his return of income of the person receiving the commission and thereby leaving nothing undisclosed in the matter within the meaning of Sec. 271 ( 1) ( c ). 5. The learned C.I.T. ( A ) erred in understanding the reasonability of the commission transaction considering the size of the business, circumstances of 2 the business transaction

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

purchase of property and they also received on-money consideration at the time of sale of the property. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 153A of the Act on 19.01.2018 calling upon the assessee to file the return of income. In response to said notices u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee had filed the returns

HARSHAD HIMMATLAL RUPANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), PUNE

In the result the ground number 3 is allowed for Statistical

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.920/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Adopr6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Bogus Sundry Creditors have been mentioned by the Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-5(3), Pune. 4.2) The ITO also made addition of Rs.12,97,808/- on account of difference in TDS credit. 4.3) Aggrieved by the Assessment Order the Assessee filed appeal before Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal).Assessee also filed certain documents before CIT(A) who called for Remand

BHASKAR DANVE PATIL ,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with the directions given above

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

TDS deducted, copies of work issued. 10. Copies of return of income filed along with copies of Audit Report, Balance Sheet and P & L Ale of such sub-contractor." 3.4 The Ld. AO in para 4.3 of the assessment order observed that the assessee in his submission filed in response to the above questionnaire has totally ignored the evidences asked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVE vs. RAJENDRA MADHUKAR JOSHI, KAMOTHE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchases from Rahul Jagdale at Rs.11,13,250/- and produced invoices. Further, with regard to M/s. R.K. Enterprises even though the bills have been filed but the details filed partially supports the contention of ld. Counsel for the assessee. Net profit of 9.34% is declared by the assessee and the turnover of the assessee has reached to the extent

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

bogus and non- genuine due to non compliance of notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued to various sub-contractor. Further, during the remand report proceeding, the Ld. Assessing officer has proposed the addition of Rs.1,25,51,607/-instead of addition of Rs.4,41,21,079/- as earlier made after due verification, details

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

purchasing the assessee's shares for the amounts reported by it. Besides, us to whether the transaction was genuine or not is a pure finding of fact which has concurrently been rendered against the assessee.” 6.17 Reference is invited to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Riddhi Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 232 Taxman 430 dated

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

TDS etc. in connection with two parties i.e. Bharavi Undhad and Mohanlal Totla as specifically required by the A.O. 26. That on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee rebutted all the observations of the ld. A.O on facts and on law and sought complete relief from the ld. CIT(A). Copy of submissions made before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

TDS etc. in connection with two parties i.e. Bharavi Undhad and Mohanlal Totla as specifically required by the A.O. 26. That on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee rebutted all the observations of the ld. A.O on facts and on law and sought complete relief from the ld. CIT(A). Copy of submissions made before