PREM GRAIN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,JALGOAN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Prem Grain Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 1, Jalgaon E 2/1, Midc Area, Ahjantha Vs. Road, Jalgaon – 425003 Pan: Aadcp9598E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Anchaliya Department By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Following Issue: “Whether Unsecured Loans Are Genuine & From Disclosed Sources.”

TDS thereon cannot by itself discharge the burden cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. According to him, in terms of section

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.

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under

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.

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

68 are absent, the addition made is 9 prima facie unjustified. He submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC without understanding the evidence on record in a very cryptic order has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is not correct. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MUKUND MANOHAR SANGAMNERKAR, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1092/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Mukund Manohar Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.09/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1092/Pun/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukund Manohar Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Abhay A. Avchat Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

section 68 gets invoked? 2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act (inadvertently mentioned as u/s 68 in assessment order) on account of the FD/investments not recorded in the books of account, without considering the fact

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

section 263 jurisdiction. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and find no reason to affirm the PCIT’s following detailed discussion:- “3. I have carefully considered facts of the case as well as reply of the assessee reproduced as above. It is undisputed that there were huge cash

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

TDS on the commission paint was negligible. Paragraph 5 deals with the expenditure incurred fowants research and development Paragraph 6 deals with the issue of depreciation on UPS. Finally, paragraph 7 deals with computation on the basis of the opinion in paragraphs 4.5 and 6. Thus, on the issue of deduction under section 100 of the IT Act, there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. DHANANJAY BABRUVAN KENDER, BEED

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Aurangabad Dhananjay Babruvan Kender Bunglow No.69, Yogeshwari Nagari Vs. Ring Road, Ambajogai, Beed – 431517 Pan: Bwlpk1384D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

TDS of Rs.65,54,172/- was deducted. However, the assessee has offered receipts to the tune of Rs.10,44,63,302/-in return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in not taking cognizance of seized material seized during

K D CHOUDHARI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.328/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 K. D. Choudhari, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Office No.36, 37, 38, Krushi Udog Bhavan, Gultekdi, Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Market Yard, Pune- 411037. Pan : Aanfk0084B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing An Order U/S 250 Dated 19/12/2024, By Observing That Appellant Has Not Responded To Notices Issued In Appellate Proceedings, Thereby Completely Ignoring The Detailed Submissions Made In Response To Last Three Notices, That To On Or Before Due Date Mentioned, Such Casual Approach In The Appellate Proceeding Is Unacceptable Because, Ld. Cit(A) Ought

68 cash credit being entire outstanding balance of sundry creditors without making any further verification entire additions needs to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.15,41,756 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering that under salary head TDS

SIDHESH MOHAN RAIKAR,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

Section 5A of the Act. He thus concluded that the remaining credit of TDS of ₹10,36,269/- may please be allowed to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee furnished

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

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee has also paid interest amounting to Rs.17,80,059/-, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,22,86,304/-. 6. Before

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

68- unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that 2 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus, given an opportunity your appellant is in position to provide all the details of such loan amount credited in bank account and therefore the entire addition in unwarranted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

68- unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that 2 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus, given an opportunity your appellant is in position to provide all the details of such loan amount credited in bank account and therefore the entire addition in unwarranted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGAON vs. PRAMOD BHAICHAND RAISONI,, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS provisions were not applicable on such interest paid to BHP. Not convinced, the AO made the disallowance, which came to be deleted in the first appeal. 7. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee paid interest to BHR. The business of BHR is of banking. Section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGAON vs. PRAMOD BHAICHAND RAISONI,, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS provisions were not applicable on such interest paid to BHP. Not convinced, the AO made the disallowance, which came to be deleted in the first appeal. 7. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee paid interest to BHR. The business of BHR is of banking. Section

ADITYA SHANKAR CHOUDHARI,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aditya Shankar Vs Ito Ward Choudhari, 10(1), Akurdi, House No. 125/2, Hill Pune Range, Phase 4, Deolali Camp-422401 Maharashtra Pan-Afopc0286M Appellant Respondent

section 35(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the fact that of the Act. u/s 43B of the Act 2. The CPC ought not to have made the addition of Rs 1,103/-, being any sum payable by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HEMANT BAGAREDDY MOTADOO, PUNE

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

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

TDS on the payment of security charges to M/s. Shani Security & Allied Services, the Assessing Officer disallowed further amount of Rs.1,15,275/-. 4. The Assessing Officer similarly made addition of Rs.26,38,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has made cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- otherwise than