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

unexplained investment under 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

RAVINDRA BHAUSAHEB MADHAVAI ,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1737/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

unexplained investment in the hands of assessee. 8. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee made payment of Rs.77,90,935/- to the contractors. The AO asked the assessee to give the list and payments to the contractors along with details of TDS

SARIKA JAGANNATH PATIL,RAIGAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, PANVEL

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2806/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

unexplained investment and made addition thereof and assessed the income at ₹67,49,450. Thereafter, the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) mentioning all the details in the statement of facts that even though the flat has been purchased in the joint name but the total payment has been made by her husband Mr.Jagannath Maruti Patil bearing PAN No.AOVPP4861M

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

unexplained investments under section 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

MRS. SNEHAL SAMEER BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 13(2), PUNE, PUNE

Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrs. Snehal Sameer Bhujbal, V The Income Tax Officer, Sanswadi, Nagar Road, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Pune – 412208. Maharashtra. Pan: Blcpb5495C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 16.05.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held

Investment in Purchase of Immovable Property of Rs.2,10,45,150/- represented in the form of Asset remains unexplained and has escaped assessment within the ITA No.1549/PUN/2025 [A] meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The said order u/s.148A(d) has been approved by ld.Pr.CCIT, Pune. We have already reproduced the Screenshot of the Insight Portal of Income Tax Department

SAGAR JAYWANT ELAWANDE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD13(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

unexplained investments in purchase of immovable property to the tune of Rs.1,83,64,830/- u/s 69 and salary income of Rs.16,44,930/- and also an amount of Rs.16,25,000/- sale consideration received by the assessee. 3. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal by observing as under :- “5. OBSERVATION

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

unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act ignoring the fact that these deposits were made through the sweep account facility linked to the current account of the Appellant. 4.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not allowing credit for Tax Deducted at Source

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

TDS\nwas not deducted for some persons / parties. The assessee has not furnished the\ncopy of Form 15G. Further, the assessee also could not substantiate with evidence\nto his satisfaction regarding the creditworthiness of persons / parties from whom\nsuch loans were taken. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer made addition\nof Rs.5,16,85,602/- to the total

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.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. Penalty u/s 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were also initiated. 5. The assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the above assessment order. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing

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.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. Penalty u/s 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were also initiated. 5. The assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the above assessment order. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing

ROHIDAS BHIKU JAMBHULKAR,HINJAWADI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CIT (A), PUNE-3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2530/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rohidas Bhiku Jambhulkar, V The Commissioner Of At Hinjawadi, Near Ganesh S Income Tax (Appeals) Mandir, Tal.Mulshi, Cit(A), Pune – 3. Dist-Pune – 411057. Pan: Ahypj9277D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri J.G.Bhumkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sanjay Dhivare –Addl.Cit(Dr) Through Virtual Hearing Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2012-13 Dated 28.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of

TDS) @1% of the gross payments / credits made to assessee. However, admittedly the Assessee had not appeared before the ld.Assessing Officer. Now the impugned addition of Rs.14,94,000/- includes unexplained cash deposit of Rs.10,94,000/- and unexplained time deposit in bank at Rs.4 lakhs. In the Grounds of appeal, assessee stated that the source of ITA No.2530/PUN/2024

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

unexplained capital, without considering the fact that since for the first time assessee integrated his books of accounts in FY 2016-17 and thereby credited the sum to capital account during F. Y. 2016-17, provisions of section 68 gets invoked? 2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

unexplained under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Pune-5, Pune has erred in confirming the same. ITA No.1453/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2010-11 Vipul Niranjan Shah (A) 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune, has erred in making an addition

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

investing company had also appeared before the Assessing Officer and also confirmed the transactions. The CIT [A] and the Tribunal also did not confirm the Assessing Officer's finding that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed.” 5. Faced with this situation, we conclude that both

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

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

TDS Chandraghant PNEV06054 Bleach Shrirampur 52,192 5219 226 a Dealer Pvt. G Chem Dist. Ltd. Enterprise Ahmednaga s r Chinpumi PNEV06054 Bleach Shrirampur 2,08,76 20877 104 traders Pvt. G Chem Dist. 7 Ltd. Enterprise Ahmednaga s r Chinpumi PNEV06054 Bleach Shrirampur 1,68,49 16850 84 traders Pvt. G Chem Dist. 3 Ltd. Enterprise Ahmednaga

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

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