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

69C of the Act and Rs. 1,54,019/- as income from other sources. The additions were made solely based on the AO's observations without appreciating the facts of the case, the true nature of the transactions, and the surrounding circumstances. ii. In the interest of natural justice, it is prayed that the order of the learned

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

TDS has been made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 8. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)[Pr.CIT], Pune on perusal of the records, invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 of the 9 ITA No.1358/PUN/2025 [A] Act. The Pr.CIT issued Show cause notice to the Assessee dated 30.05.2024 u/s.263 of the Act, which is reproduced here as under

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

section 69C of the Act relates to unexplained expenditure etc.” and described the same as “unaccounted expenditure”. There is difference between “unaccounted expenditure” and 13 “unexplained expenditure”. The Assessing Officer erroneously mentioned the expenditure as “unaccounted expenditure” instead of “unexplained expenditure”. The said mistake was not rectified by the CIT(A) too though he used the expression “unaccounted expenditure

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

section 69C of the Act relates to unexplained expenditure etc.” and described the same as “unaccounted expenditure”. There is difference between “unaccounted expenditure” and 13 “unexplained expenditure”. The Assessing Officer erroneously mentioned the expenditure as “unaccounted expenditure” instead of “unexplained expenditure”. The said mistake was not rectified by the CIT(A) too though he used the expression “unaccounted expenditure

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

section 69C of the Act relates to unexplained expenditure etc.” and described the same as “unaccounted expenditure”. There is difference between “unaccounted expenditure” and 13 “unexplained expenditure”. The Assessing Officer erroneously mentioned the expenditure as “unaccounted expenditure” instead of “unexplained expenditure”. The said mistake was not rectified by the CIT(A) too though he used the expression “unaccounted expenditure

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 deduction on higher amount, the appellant company has furnished confirmation of sub-contractor, ledger account extract of R K Fabricators in the books of assessee and vice versa . The appellant has also submitted Form 16A which indicates the expense incurred by the assessee towards the said party. Therefore, the appellant company has discharged its primary onus

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

HABIB SHAKUR MAX,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.948/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 69C of the Act. In reply, the assessee pointed out that City Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. (in short ‘CFCFIL’) had shown excess receipts of ₹ 20,88,680/- for the month of March, 2010 and deducted excess TDS

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:

section 69C of the Act, made addition of the same. 4. The Assessing Officer further noted from pages 25 to 33 of item No.2 that it is a purchase deed of the agricultural land executed on 07.04.2018. The purchase consideration is Rs.8,56,000/-. In absence of any explanation given by the assessee regarding the source of the same

OLIVE TREE TRADING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

section 69C of the IT Act and thereby erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs. 66,39,484/- 2 ITA No.899/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 4. Without prejudice to Ground no 3, the Ld. CIT failed to appreciate the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee which is alternatively treated as revenue expenses and erred in confirming the order

VIPUL NIRANJAN SHAH,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1453/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr.Vipul Niranjan Shah, The Deputy Commissioner Of 39, Mantri Court, Wellesley Road, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2,Pune. Sangam, Pune – 411001. Pan: Achps 9906 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sagar S.Tilak– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe- Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2022

section 14A of the Act and the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Pune-5, Pune has erred in confirming the same. 6. The Assessee requests for affording any other relief as Hon. Tribunal considers appropriate. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AISHWARYA CONSTRUCTION CO.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.2036/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

TDS not deducted u/s.194-I of the Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,18,35,803/- towards disallowance of labour payment u/s.40A(3)/40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

TDS. Thus, he submits that the appellant had discharged the onus lying upon it in terms of provisions of section 19 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 68 of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in making the addition of unsecured loans. E. As regards, the addition made on account