VISION ENTERPRISES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 192/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vision Enterprises, Hotel Sulai, Dhankawadi, Pune. Pan: Aajfv0168P . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Akshay Garg Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; With The Following Grounds Of Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Revisionary Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Pune [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 22/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] For Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2015-16; “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessment

TDS’] u/s 194A(1) of the Act. (ii) Repayment of unsecured loan otherwise than by an account payee cheque/draft in violation of provisions of section 269T

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

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

269T of the Act. The assessee in response to the same gave the details of 16 parties from whom it had taken loan through proper banking channel. The Assessing Officer thereafter asked the assessee to furnish the documentary evidence substantiating the said loans which have been arranged through Sri Sachin Nahar. From the reply submitted by the assessee, he noted