VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

TDS Statement Interest other than interest on 11125 securities (Section 1944)\nTotal\nRs.36011125/-\n03. Inquiry by the AO:\nOn verification with the departmental websites of e-filing portal, ITBA and Insight, it is noted that the assessee has not filed any return of\n11\nITA No.540/PUN/2025 [A]\nincome for AY 2015-16 but has sold immovable property of Rs.36000000

KALPANA VIJAY KADAM,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.841/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Vijay Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, Fi 13, Janki Heights, S.No.250, S. Ward-2(2), Pune. Baner D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Axzpk4350P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – 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 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 06.02.2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Affording A Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant. The Order Was Solely Based On The Observations Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The

section 148A , thank you for the same . On checking the same, it is mentioned that TDS statement - Payment of consideration

PASHANKAR AUTO WHEELS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. CIT(A) CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

TDS statement – Rent (section 194-I) 4,50,000 2 3. He, therefore, passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 26.03.2022 after

PARVATI STEEL RE ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

section 148A of the Act was not followed and hence notice is bad in law. Similarly in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) the notice was issued u/s 148 for the assessment year 2013-14 on 28.07.2022 for which the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court quashed the re-assessment proceedings. Herein, in the instant case the notice

MRS. SNEHAL SAMEER BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 13(2), PUNE, PUNE

Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrs. Snehal Sameer Bhujbal, V The Income Tax Officer, Sanswadi, Nagar Road, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Pune – 412208. Maharashtra. Pan: Blcpb5495C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 16.05.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held

148A(b)). Information Description Amount code TDS- TDS Statement – Payment for purchase 14030100 194IA(P) of immovable property (Section 194IA

KESARINATH RAM GAIKWAD,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

TDS was deducted by the department, thereby acknowledging his legal status vis-à-vis the acquired land. 6. Because, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.23,54,443/- as interest income under the head "Income from Other Sources" failing to appreciate that the said interest was never actually received by the Appellant but is disputed

OMKAR RAMCHANDRA VELHAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

148A(b) of the\nAct; the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 passed under section\n148A(d) of the Act and the impugned notice dated 19.07.2022 issued\nunder section 148 of the Act in the case of the petitioner for AY 2015-\n16;\nD. Issue any other Writ, order, or Direction which this Hon'ble Court\nmay deem fit and proper

VINEET TIWARI,BENGALURU vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MHASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, LATUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

SAPANA DHARMENDRA SHAH,MALEGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MALEGAON, MALEGAON

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2217/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sapana Dharmendra Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Khodiyar Bhavan, Ramsetu, Ward – 1, Malegaon Opp. Gayatri Mangal Karyala, Vs. Malegaon, Nashik-423203 Pan : Belps3009B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information Flagged By The Cbdt Through Insight Portal Under The Head “Nms Category”, It Was Found That During The Relevant Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,91,03,000/- In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. In The Name Of M/S Shree Kakaji Masale & Foods. Further, There Is Also Tds Made To The Tune Of Rs.1,524/- U/S 194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On „Interest Other Than „Interest On Securities‟ Against A Total Credit Of Rs.15,240/- By The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd., Which Has Not Been Disclosed To The Department. Since, The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 05.04.2022 Which Was Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Did Not File Her Return Of Income. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act As Well As Show Cause Notice Were Issued, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Certain

TDS made to the tune of Rs.1,524/- u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on „interest other than „Interest on securities‟ against a total credit of Rs.15,240/- by The Malegaon Merchant‟s Co-op Bank Ltd., which has not been disclosed to the Department. Since, the assessee had not filed her return of income, notice

SAGAR JAYWANT ELAWANDE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD13(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

148A(b), 148 and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee. Since the assessee did not reply to any of the notices, 2 the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining total income of Rs.2,16,34,760/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained investments in purchase of immovable

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-12, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

TDS credit is duly appearing in Form 26AS of the Appellant for the year under appeal. The appellant submits that the case of the appellant could not be properly explained in absence of adequate opportunity both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 2.3 The appellant, therefore, prays that the above non-allowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer may please

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

TDS credit is duly appearing in Form 26AS of the Appellant for the year under appeal. The appellant submits that the case of the appellant could not be properly explained in absence of adequate opportunity both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 2.3 The appellant, therefore, prays that the above non-allowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer may please