M/S JYOTI SOLUTIONWORKS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2317/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2009-10

purchases. 6. Appellant trust craves leave to add/modify/delete / amend all / any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Registry has informed that there is delay of 480 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating the reason that “due to merger of the transferor company with the appellant, updates on e-filing

SHRI NIRMAL SHARAD MUTHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon. & Nirmal Sharad Mutha, Vs Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, Plot No.83, Manik Nagar, Ahmednagar. Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar. Pan: Afvpm 3572 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune, Dated 03.03.2020 For A.Y.2012-13 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

delay of 1004 days is condoned and the case is heard and discussed on merits. 3. The relevant facts pertaining to ground No.2 for confirmation of addition by ld. CIT(A) u/sec. 68 of the Act of Rs.2,40,00,000/- are that this addition was made on account of unexplained cash credit in the form of loans obtained from

MR. SIRAJUDDIN ABDUL SAMAD CHUADHARY,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2010-11

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.31,36,649/- made

SHREE SANTOSHIMATA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSTHA,PEN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2019/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Santoshimata Majoor Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Sahakari Sanstha, 203, Gr. Floor, Sonkhar, Pen, Raigad- 402107. Pan : Avhpm2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil R. Talreja Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of This Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in collective disposal of labour of its members and has furnished its return of income on 21.09.2015 after claiming deduction of Rs.2

PRAKASH METAL INDISTRIES,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal in light of decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC and proceed for adjudication of appeal. 4. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts

M/S SHIVAM CONSTRUCTION CO.,PANVEL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.810/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Shivam Construction Co., Vs. Dcit, 5, At Nhavda Phata, Panvel Circle, Midc, Taloja, Panvel – 410 208 Panvel Maharashtra Pan : Aaefm8600L Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases of Rs.4,26,702/-. 3. Against the said assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), Thane who vide order dated 03.10.2017 dismissed the appeal. On further appeal before the ITAT, Pune, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of AO for afresh adjudication. Pursuant to the order of Tribunal, the assessment was completed vide

SNOWCEM PAINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

bogus purchases of Rs.2,54,76,525/- from Manik Genetics (P) Ltd. assessee was issued notice u/s.148 of the Act but there was no compliance. Again in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022 notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act. Still there

M/S PRAJ ENGINEERS,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

delay is condoned and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 2 M/s. Praj Engineers 3. There is no appearance from the side of assessee despite notice. I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose off the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 4. The only issue involved in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.3

SHREEM ELECTRIC LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shreem Electric Limited, V The Assistant Plot No.43 To 46, S Commissioner Of Income L.K.Akiwate Industrial Tax, Estate, Jaysingpur, Shirol, Central Circle, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416144. Pan: Aaccs4893C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak -Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2024 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), Pune-11Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 270A Of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That, Since The Addition Is Made On Adhoc Basis, No Penalty Can Be Levied. 3. The Penalty Levied May Please Be Delete. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. There Is A Delay Of Two Months Of Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit, We Are Convinced With The Reasons For Delay & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay.

condone the delay. 3. At the outset of hearing, none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment letter filed. Even on earlier hearing i.e.08.07.2024 no one had appeared and no adjournment letter was filed. In these facts and circumstances, we heard the appeal ex- parte. 4. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. 5. In this

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee M/s. Adhunik Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd.) is a company engaged in trading of drip material and onions. It filed its return of income on 31.01.2013 declaring

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

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

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee

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

bogus\ncompanies?\nAns: The accommodation entries by way of unsecured loans were taken to\npurchase properties. I did not have the amounts in the bank accounts but\nhad the cash. Therefore to purchase the properties, I had to do this\nexercise.\n6\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nThe return of income for AY 2011-12 filed on 29/09/2011 by the assessee