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 115BBE of the Act was also challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS @1% u/s 1941A would also be required to be deducted for extra amenities such as club membership fees, car parking fee, electricity and water facility. maintenance fee or any other charges of similar nature paid at the time of purchase of property which are incidental to transfer of the immovable property. From the above it is clear that there

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. LALIT RAGHUNATHRAO SHINDE , PUNE

TDS claim on receipts not offered for taxation by the assessee.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1)", "143(3)", "271(1)(c)", "254", "199" ], "issues": "Whether the receipts reflected in Form 26AS, which were transferred to a sister concern, constitute undisclosed income

RIDDHI SIDDHI MAHILA NAGARI CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, KARAD,KARAD vs. CIT (APPEALS), DELHI

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2216/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Riddhi Siddhi Mahila Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Income Tax Department. Palkar House, 157, Guruwar Peth, Shri Vitthal Chouk, Karad- 415110. Pan : Aacar0958D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijaykumar N. Kashirsagar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Credit Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Also In Accepting Deposits From Them. On The Basis Of Information That The Assessee Has Made One Time Deposit Of Rs.5,95,522/- & Tds Of More Than Rs.7,72,686/-

TDS of more than Rs.7,72,686/- 2 was deducted u/s 194A of the Act on the PAN of the assessee and still assessee has not furnished its return of income for the period under consideration, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee after necessary compliance and approvals. Subsequently, other statutory

SUHAS JAGANNATH KANASE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

undisclosed salary without providing reasonable/adequate opportunity to be heard is violation of principle of natural justice by the learned assessing officer. The Appellant prays that the disallowance of Rs. 1,26,043/- be deleted. Ground No. 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2013-14 The Asstt. Cit Cir. 6, Pune. Appellant Vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto C-10 Abhimanshree Society, Baner Road, Pune-411008 Pan : Aajcs 8944F Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By : Shri R.G. Gawli Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-05-2022 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act) r.w.s. 32 of the Act and Rs. 4,00,004/- on account of undisclosed TDS

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

undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Act. 7.1 I have carefully considered the facts and evidences on record. The appellant has not complied to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. The AO made the addition of introduction of capital in F.Y 20 14-15 LIC Maturity of Rs.1,51,885 and capital introduction of Rs.2,55,601u/s

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

undisclosed source” show that the disclosure must come from the assessee and not from the department. 6.10 Section 68 provides that where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of the previous year if the explanation offered

BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

TDS but the assessee failed to do so, thereby it was liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the unexplained cash deposits by giving telescoping benefits of on-money received without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to submit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

TDS but the assessee failed to do so, thereby it was liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the unexplained cash deposits by giving telescoping benefits of on-money received without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to submit

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

MR. YOGESH KULTHE,AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PANVEL, DIST. RAIGAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.940/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

undisclosed income of the assessee. In addition, on perusal of ITS data available with the Department, the AO also made addition of Rs.3,92,119/- being the salary received from his employers namely Veena Industries Limited and Indo Asian Fusegear Ltd. on account of failure of the assessee to file the return of income. 3. Aggrieved by the above assessment

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

TDS) amounting to 3,48,250/-, which was deducted from the income of the Appellant. Ground No.5 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case the LD AO erred in invoking section 69 to tax undisclosed

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

undisclosed. The case of the assessee was thus reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act with the reasons to believe that the income to the extent of AYs. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Rs.60,76,654/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 2015-16. Statutory notice

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

undisclosed. The case of the assessee was thus reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act with the reasons to believe that the income to the extent of AYs. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Rs.60,76,654/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 2015-16. Statutory notice

DHAVAL VINOD GADA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dhaval Vinod Gada Dcit, Circle – 5, Pune 101, New Timber Market, Vs. Bhawani Peth, Pune – 411042 Pan: Anjpg4733A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

undisclosed funds. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. For the remaining amount of Rs.1.62, crore, of which Shri Morgen Vinod Gada is beneficiary, the information in this respect will be intimated to respective Assessing Officer.” 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, relying on the decision

COL R D NIKAM SAINIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.794/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Col R D Nikam Sainiksahakari The Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Satara Circle, Chh. Shivaji Maharaj Circle, Satara. Powai Naka, Satara – 415001. Pan: Aabas 2355 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Renuka Ghatge – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 28.02.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Form Number 36 Of Appeal Memo: “1. The Learned Assessing Office Is Not Justified In Adding The Liabilities & Capital Receipts Credited To General Reserve Totaling To Rs.6,73,807/- To The Total Income & Addition Should Be Deleted.

Undisclosed Interest on FDRs from UCO Bank 33,840/- Total 19,56,005/- 3. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. ITA No.794/PUN/2019for A.Y. 2012-13 Col R D Nikam Sainik Sahakari