WEBTRUST CO.IN (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

268. 6. Being aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia

WEBTRUST CO.IN (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

268. 6. Being aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Act or any other provision as the case may be. And further that there existed contractual relationship between payer-payees hereunder. We thus quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. R B Wadkar (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) and the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR vs. UPPAL JITENDRA SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS was also deducted thereon and therefore, there was no reason to hold that the loans taken from these 16 persons were non genuine. 5] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that simply because the notices u/s 131/ 133(6) could not be served on the above persons did not mean that the loans taken from them

UPPAL SHAH PROP-J K SUGARS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS was also deducted thereon and therefore, there was no reason to hold that the loans taken from these 16 persons were non genuine. 5] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that simply because the notices u/s 131/ 133(6) could not be served on the above persons did not mean that the loans taken from them

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

TDS Chandraghant PNEV06054 Bleach Shrirampur 52,192 5219 226 a Dealer Pvt. G Chem Dist. Ltd. Enterprise Ahmednaga s r Chinpumi PNEV06054 Bleach Shrirampur 2,08,76 20877 104 traders Pvt. G Chem Dist. 7 Ltd. Enterprise Ahmednaga s r Chinpumi PNEV06054 Bleach Shrirampur 1,68,49 16850 84 traders Pvt. G Chem Dist. 3 Ltd. Enterprise Ahmednaga

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

SHRI MULTANCHAND BORA TRUST,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE- AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1312/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, V The Assistant/Deputy 132B/2A, Ganeshkhind Road, S. Commissioner Of Income Pune – 411007. Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad. Pan: Aafts3329F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrenik Gandhi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune At Nashik Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 30.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Cit (Exemption) Seriously Erred On The Facts & Law, In Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section

Section 263 of the IT Act cannot be exercised merely because there is a “change of opinion”. The Learned CIT (Exemption) ought to have appreciated that, the case was not a case of lack of enquiry and that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer and all the relevant documents and details were available before the Assessing Officer

RAJENDRA SHIVAJI THETE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Shivanjali, Plot No.25, H.No.4669, Shivaji Nagar, Ozar Mig, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Abwpt0060C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai : 09.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,49,704/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under Reporting Of Income In Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

268/-. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B 3 of the IT Act on 20.09.2021 by accepting the income returned in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Subsequently, vide order dated 09.12.2021 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.1,49,704/- u/s 270A for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income of Rs.3