ACIT,CIRCLE-1,SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. YUVRAJ PATIL AND COMPANY, TALSANGI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2023-24 Acit, Circle – 1, Yuvraj Patil & Company Solapur Vs. Talsangi, Mangalwedha, Solapur – 413305 Pan: Aaafy4589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-03-2026

TDS on purchases of Rs.14,50,30,066/- as per provisions of section 194Q, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,35,09,020/- by disallowing 30% of such purchases. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, on the basis of certain additional evidences filed before him, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have

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’).

TDS has been deducted. Similar payments have been made in the past years also and no such disallowance was made. 3.2 However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and made an addition of Rs.4,41,21,079/- in respect of 13 sub-contractors by regarding as under: “5.2 Submission of the assessee

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE vs. DIPTI NARENDRA LULLA, PUNE

Section 68. In the instant\nappeal no enquiry was made by the AO to obtain information from the creditors.\n8.6 Based on the above discussion it is evident that the appellant has discharge\nthe onus but while making the addition the AO has not done any further investigation/\nenquiry in drawing an adverse inference.\n8.7 In view of the above

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

TDS certificates / 15G forms for verification. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The invocation of 6 CO No.43/PUN/2025 provisions of section

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 :

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 Report as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules from the AO. The AO submitted Remand Report. The Ld.CIT(A) finally held as under with reference to Sundry Creditors

MAHAVIR ADINATH SALVE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

46A. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order the appellant preferred an appeal before the ITAT, and the ITAT in IT A No. 20/PN/2014 [A.Y. 2008-09] dated 23.10.2015 set-aside the order to the file of the AO with the direction to decide the(Tssue afresh in the light of 15G/15H forms submitted by the sub contractor to whom

CPI GERA REALTY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.64 & 65/Pun/2023 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaccg6818R . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(3), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh Soniminde Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Twin Appeals, The Assessee Challenges The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

section 143(3), r.w.s.l53A of the Act, for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2014-15. IV. The ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in not considering the following relevant facts : ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 10 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No 64 &65/PUN/2023 AY: 2013-14 &2015-16 1. All the payments had been made

CPI GERA REALTY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.64 & 65/Pun/2023 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaccg6818R . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(3), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh Soniminde Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Twin Appeals, The Assessee Challenges The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

section 143(3), r.w.s.l53A of the Act, for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2014-15. IV. The ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in not considering the following relevant facts : ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 10 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No 64 &65/PUN/2023 AY: 2013-14 &2015-16 1. All the payments had been made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

46A of the IT Rules. Referring to the order of\nthe Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd.\nreported in 148 taxmann.com 14, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said\ndecision has held that deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable if the approval was\nnot granted by DSIR. He heavily

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

46A of the IT Rules. Referring to the order of\nthe Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd.\nreported in 148 taxmann.com 14, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said\ndecision has held that deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable if the approval was\nnot granted by DSIR. He heavily

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

46A of the IT Rules. Referring to the order of\nthe Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd.\nreported in 148 taxmann.com 14, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said\ndecision has held that deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable if the approval was\nnot granted by DSIR. He heavily

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

46A of the IT Rules. Referring to the order of\nthe Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd.\nreported in 148 taxmann.com 14, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said\ndecision has held that deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable if the approval was\nnot granted by DSIR. He heavily

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

TDS credit of Rs.4,02,541/- thereby claiming a refund of Rs.4,02,541/-. The return was revised on 06.03.2020 claiming income tax refund of Rs.2541/- and carry forward loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/-. However, the CPC did not allow the claim of carry forward 2 business loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/- as claimed in the return

DILIP JAWAHARLAL VARYANI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.643/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2011-12 Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, V The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.9/2B, Cts No.905, S Income Tax, Circle-8, Vaibhav Vihar, Near Vikram Pune. Vihar, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Acapv0521H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Vaze, Ca – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Irs–Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.06.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

TDS was deducted. Submission of ld.DR : 4. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR vehemently submitted that ld.CIT(A) had given 13 opportunities, hence ld.CIT(A) had given sufficient opportunities. Ld.DR submitted that ld.AR’s request to set-aside the ld.CIT(A) order to ld.CIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. AJARA MERCHANTS CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AJARA, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1138 & 1693/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Main Branch, Nalawade Building, Main Road, Ajara, Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aadca1779J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.03.2024 & 13.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Quantum Appeal I.E Ita No.1138/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

section 148 invalid by stating that a person's income cannot be taxed twice on the basis of technicality but ignoring the fact that the notice itself issued for verification of transaction and during the whole proceedings of verification the assessee remained non complaint even after all notices were duly served upon the assessee. 3. On the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. AJARA MERCHANTS CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AJARA, AJARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1138 & 1693/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Main Branch, Nalawade Building, Main Road, Ajara, Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aadca1779J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.03.2024 & 13.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Quantum Appeal I.E Ita No.1138/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

section 148 invalid by stating that a person's income cannot be taxed twice on the basis of technicality but ignoring the fact that the notice itself issued for verification of transaction and during the whole proceedings of verification the assessee remained non complaint even after all notices were duly served upon the assessee. 3. On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. PATIL AND CO,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshalithe Dcit, Circle - 1 M/S. Patil & Company Aayakar Bhavan 20.12, Pandit Niwas Vs. Hotgi Road, Opp Hotel Kinara South Sadar Bazar Solapur 413003 Solapur 413003 Pan –Aagfp1169H Appellant Respondent Co No.12/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1426/Pun/2019) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Patil & Company The Dcit, Circle - 1 20.12, Pandit Niwas Aayakar Bhavan Vs. South Sadar Bazar Hotgi Road, Opp Hotel Kinara Solapur 413003 Solapur 413003 Pan –Aagfp1169H Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Revenue By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Assessee By: Shri S.N. Puranik Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 1426/Pun/2019 & Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No. 12/Pun/2022 For Ay 2015-16 Arise From The Cit(A)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.07.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir-1/10335/2017- 18, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. The Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 1426/Pun/2019 raises the following substantive grounds: - 2 ITA 1426/Pun/2019 & CO 12/Pun/2022 M/s. Patil and Company “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred