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

PARVATI STEEL RE ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A and brought to tax the same. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.3,86,810/- being the interest income received on which TDS

SAPANA DHARMENDRA SHAH,MALEGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MALEGAON, MALEGAON

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2217/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sapana Dharmendra Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Khodiyar Bhavan, Ramsetu, Ward – 1, Malegaon Opp. Gayatri Mangal Karyala, Vs. Malegaon, Nashik-423203 Pan : Belps3009B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information Flagged By The Cbdt Through Insight Portal Under The Head “Nms Category”, It Was Found That During The Relevant Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,91,03,000/- In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. In The Name Of M/S Shree Kakaji Masale & Foods. Further, There Is Also Tds Made To The Tune Of Rs.1,524/- U/S 194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On „Interest Other Than „Interest On Securities‟ Against A Total Credit Of Rs.15,240/- By The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd., Which Has Not Been Disclosed To The Department. Since, The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 05.04.2022 Which Was Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Did Not File Her Return Of Income. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act As Well As Show Cause Notice Were Issued, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Certain

TDS made to the tune of Rs.1,524/- u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on „interest other than „Interest on securities‟ against a total credit of Rs.15,240/- by The Malegaon Merchant‟s Co-op Bank Ltd., which has not been disclosed to the Department. Since, the assessee had not filed her return of income, 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

money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the above addition made by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO by observing as under : “4.3 I have gone through the grounds

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

money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the above addition made by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the addition made by the Ld. AO by observing as under : “4.3 I have gone through the grounds

RATAN KISAN BORADE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Unexplained Money, being summations of certain cash deposits/credit entries in bank account by rejecting the appellant's submission and further erred in not appreciating that there were cash withdrawals from the bank account and alternatively appellant was entitled to get credit of such withdrawals by applying the theory of peak credit. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your

MAGARAJ MISHRIMAL RATHI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

money. In this regard, it is submitted that the assessee is a business man engaged in sale of Sarees and 5 advertising business and has disclosed taxable income of Rs.22,48,700/- during the period under consideration and out of the business cash receipt, Rs.1,88,000/- was deposited in bank. It was further submitted that on 04.04.2016 agricultural land

DILIP HIRALAL CHAUDHARI,NANDURBAR vs. ITO, WARD, DHULE

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

unexplained money), which comes to Rs.7,62,865/-. Thus the assessment was made on a total income of Rs.16,60,008/-. 4. Being aggrieved with the above action of the AO, an appeal was preferred before LD CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order dated 30-01-2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by observing as under

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

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

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

money received i.e. in respect of 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

OMKAR RAMCHANDRA VELHAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

unexplained credits under Section 68. The\nappellant states that the money received from Shri. Nikhil Vijay Bakare\nas unsecured loan was repaid and Affidavit regarding the same was\nsubmitted by the appellant. Therefore, the addition may be deleted.\n4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, after, modify or delete\nthe above grounds of appeal

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

money consideration in cash in connection with the purchase of land at Paud Road amounting to Rs.6,27,20,500/- and brought to tax as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The scanned images of notings were reproduced at page nos.18, 19, 20 and 21 of the assessment order, copy of the 12 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022

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.

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax credit balance, outstanding in the name of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/- by observing that the notices u/s 133(6) were retuned un-served and copies of the contract notes were not filed

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.

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax credit balance, outstanding in the name of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/- by observing that the notices u/s 133(6) were retuned un-served and copies of the contract notes were not filed

SARIKA VITTHAL GUND,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

money of members in respect of maturity proceeds. (ii) The appellant has not obtained any confirmation from the bank to clarify whether the modus operandi explained by the appellant was approved by the bank. Further, whether she was authorized to collect the maturity amount on behalf of the members and distribute the same to the members in cash

SARIKA VITTHAL GUND,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

money of members in respect of maturity proceeds. (ii) The appellant has not obtained any confirmation from the bank to clarify whether the modus operandi explained by the appellant was approved by the bank. Further, whether she was authorized to collect the maturity amount on behalf of the members and distribute the same to the members in cash

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

money has been paid using the sources of Appellants husband. (Please note: bank statements of husband are submitted herewith to simply reassure Your Honour's that Appellant had rightly proove her part of source which was loan only. These bank statements are not additional evidences, rather these are documents to further proove that evidences submitted earlier by Appellant were complete