ASWAD JAIDAS PATIL,RAIGAD vs. DY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

unexplained cash credit u/s.69A, the ld. CIT(A) erred in non-appreciation of the fact that verification of sources of cash deposits in HDFC Bank Ltd has not been carried out properly in the remand report proceedings. 6. It is humbly requested that the order of the CIT(A) may be set-aside back to the file

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS was duly deducted which has resulted into double taxation. The Ld. AR filed detailed written submissions raising the following contentions and urged that the Ld. AO may be directed to re-compute the addition by applying the reasonable profit rate as may be deemed proper by the Bench. : “Submissions on Ground No 6, 7 & 8 which deal with unexplained

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS was duly deducted which has resulted into double taxation. The Ld. AR filed detailed written submissions raising the following contentions and urged that the Ld. AO may be directed to re-compute the addition by applying the reasonable profit rate as may be deemed proper by the Bench. : “Submissions on Ground No 6, 7 & 8 which deal with unexplained

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO - WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS was duly deducted which has resulted into double taxation. The Ld. AR filed detailed written submissions raising the following contentions and urged that the Ld. AO may be directed to re-compute the addition by applying the reasonable profit rate as may be deemed proper by the Bench. : “Submissions on Ground No 6, 7 & 8 which deal with unexplained

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

unexplained expenditure on account of difference between the travelling expenses as per petty cash book and the travelling expenses admitted in the schedule forming part of P & L account. In view of above discussion addition of Rs.24,010/- and Rs.5,53,637/- made by the AO stand confirmed. These grounds are therefore dismissed.” 15 31. The Ld. Counsel

NARESH T. WADHWANI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(4),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.792/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Naresh T Wadhwani, The Income Tax Officer, Office No.9, Umed Bhavan, Vs Ward-8(4), Pune. Canara Bank, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aabpw 7203 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V.L.Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune’S Order Dated 27.03.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6/Ito Wd.8(4)/10658/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

unexplained cash credits". 2. The case of the AO is found in Para 7.2 to Para 9.1 of the assessment order. In sum, according to the AO - a) There is no business carried out by the lenders at the addresses given (Para 7.2) b) The lenders were not found at the given address (Para 8.1) c) The appellant

SHEI RAJIV NAGARI PATASAVNSTHA MARYA HITANI,GADHINGLAJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) being cash and time deposits with ICICI Bank and Shri Veershaiv Co-op. Bank Ltd. respectively and thereby rejecting the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 2 ITA No.1727/PUN/2025, AY 2019-20 3. None appeared for/on behalf of the assessee

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

unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.78 lacs. The same is directed to be deleted. 6. Next comes commission expenditure of Rs.29,54,313/- disallowed by both the learned lower authorities. The CIT(A)‟s detailed discussion affirming the same reads as under: “4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Pvt. Ltd. Company engaged

BHUSHAN UTTAMRAO BACHHAV,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

credits. It is a clear case of introduction of unexplained cash. These 45 persons have tried to accommodate the appellant in explaining the source of Rs.1,80,00,000/- in his hands by furnishing fictitious affidavits. While the identities of these persons may have been proved, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions are clearly found to be bogus

KUMAR BUILDERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kumar Builders, 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Centre (Kbc) Opp. Pune Central, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411 001. Pan : Aacfk1478L .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

unexplained cash credit, disallowance of expenditure u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), disallowance on commission payment, disallowance of income from house property and disallowance of incorrect claim of TDS

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

unexplained cash credits. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of “CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.” (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. NARESH J. KARDA,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

unexplained cash credit deserves to be deleted in light of the foregoing detailed evidence on merits as well as the foregoing judicial precedents. 5. The Revenue placed strong reliance on both the lower authorities action making the impugned addition. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions and find no merit in assessee’s stand. We make

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. NARESH J. KARDA,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

unexplained cash credit deserves to be deleted in light of the foregoing detailed evidence on merits as well as the foregoing judicial precedents. 5. The Revenue placed strong reliance on both the lower authorities action making the impugned addition. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions and find no merit in assessee’s stand. We make

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. NARESH J. KARDA,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

unexplained cash credit deserves to be deleted in light of the foregoing detailed evidence on merits as well as the foregoing judicial precedents. 5. The Revenue placed strong reliance on both the lower authorities action making the impugned addition. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions and find no merit in assessee’s stand. We make

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

unexplained cash credit is concerned, he deleted the same by observing as under: 4 “The appellant assessee have provided relevant evidences in support of its contentions and the above judicial pronouncements, this appellate authority finds weight in the submissions and documentary evidences provided by the appellant assessee to this appellate authority. Consequently, from the above discussed facts and judicial pronouncements

SACHIN SHANTILAL RUNWAL,DHULE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2, DHULE, DHULE

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

Bench: SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

unexplained cash deposited in bank account without considering the facts and circumstances of the case properly and judicially. 3) On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating "Additional Ground of appeal” related to not allowing credit of TDS

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.

Unexplained expenses L-1/B2/6 - 743000 - 743000 L-1/B2/7 - 1013000 - 1013000 L-1/B2/10 70000000 92028000 12100000 174128000 L-1/B2/11 - 20000000 5000000 25000000 L-1/B2/12 - 6950000 - 6950000 L-1/B2/14 - 10785000 - 10785000 L-1/B2/15 - 20971000 - 20971000 L-1/B2/16 - 2500000 - 2500000 B] Amount L-1/B2/17 - 19000000 - 19000000 receivable C] Amount of - - - - cash found In Premises