DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

section 250 which he failed to do. Thus, it was a fit case where the AAC should have exercised the powers conferred upon him and taken on record the zerox copies of the cheque, the certificate from the bank and the copy of the account of the assessee with the said bank and considered the same for deciding the genuineness

M/S. GORDHANSINGH S RAJPUROHIT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PANVEL

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

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

bogus purchases. This is a case, where at the most, the purchase amount would have been inflated. Moreover the impugned addition of Rs.3,08,99,339/- would result in net profit of 68% which is not possible in any trading business. Therefore, following the principle laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

section 2(47) of IT Act, 1961. In absence of any satisfactory details, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the entire transaction appears to be sham. 5. The Assessing Officer analyzed the share price of M/s Anukaran Commercial Enterprises Ltd and M/s. Shree Ganesh Spinners Ltd on different dates for comparison and observed that there are huge changes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVE vs. RAJENDRA MADHUKAR JOSHI, KAMOTHE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 68 of the Act cannot be applied in respect of a sale transaction. Under these circumstances, the AO is hereby directed to delete the addition of Rs.29,00,000/- made by the FAO u/s.68 of the Act.” 11. So far as the loan of Rs.1.00 lakh from Usha Jagdish Tisge is concerned, ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that

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.

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN MOTILAL MUTHA, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2211/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Vs Sachin Motilal Mutha, Officer, H-4, Kalyan Co. Op. Hsg. Sco., Ward-11(1), Pune. Shankarsheth Road, Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune – 411004. Pan: Ahdpm2649F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Sachin Motilal Mutha (Assessee) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue 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 21.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144Bof The Act, Dated 25.03.2023. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated 21.07.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144Bof the Act, dated 25.03.2023. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.2211/PUN/2025 [D] “(i) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee

GANESH AGRO STEEL INDUSTRIES,NASHIK vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

purchases\nwhereas the A.O. had not confronted any seized documents or statements\nwhich were relied upon by him to doubt the genuineness of the said\npurchases nor did the A.O. grant an opportunity of cross examination of\nthe said party in spite of specific written request, and hence, the above\naddition made by the A.O. merely by relying on information

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed\nu/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act, dated 28/09/2021 for the\n Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.\n2.\nRevenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-\n“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

VIDYARTHI VIKAS PRATISHTHAN JALGAON,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Assessment Unit, Income Jalgaon, V Tax Department(Nfac) Gat No.148, Yashwant Nagar, S Ramanand Nagar, Maharashtra – 425001. Pan: Aaatv6624R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishnan – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Passed On 20.09.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before Him By The Assessee & In Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A]

250/- Municiple Tax Rs.36,241/- Postage and Telegram Rs.170/- Printing and Stationery Rs.84,937/- Remuneration to Doctors and Nurses Rs.32,97,914/- Remuneration to Pharmacists and Other Staff Rs.11,87,548/- Shop Rent Rs.6,34,667/- Student Bhojan Expenses Rs.1,54,854/- Telephone Expenses Rs.22,461/- Xerox Expenses Rs.2,062/- 3 Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A] Cost of Medicine Sold

R. K. WINES,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250 of the Act, dated19.12.2024 for the A.Y.2022-23. The\nAssessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\n“1. The Hon CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the Id AO in\nrejecting the books of accounts by resorting to the provisions of section\n145(3) of the LT Act, 1961, not appreciating that the books of accounts\nand

HARSHAD HIMMATLAL RUPANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), PUNE

In the result the ground number 3 is allowed for Statistical

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.920/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Adopr6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15 dated 26.08.2024 emanating from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.920/PUN/2025 [A] “1] The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions aggregating Rs.12,62,833/- in respect of amount

VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] which emanated out of order of assessment dt. 30/12/2016 passed by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle, Kolhapur [in short ‘AO’] u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 14 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.956/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2009-10 2. Briefly stated

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

purchased the Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. through offline mode on 12.11.2012. Further, there was no response from the side of assessee to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO concluded that the long term capital gain shown by the assessee in the return of income if bogus. He accordingly added the total amount

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

250 asking Copy of ITRS, PAN No. of parties, Copy of ledger A/c and written documentary proof of such purchased order or any other documents related to contract for purchase entered between you and the vendors. But appellant was failed to provide the comprehensive documents of proof documents to prove his claim. In the submission made the appellant

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

250 asking Copy of ITRS, PAN No. of parties, Copy of ledger A/c and written documentary proof of such purchased order or any other documents related to contract for purchase entered between you and the vendors. But appellant was failed to provide the comprehensive documents of proof documents to prove his claim. In the submission made the appellant

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

purchased the shares of M/s. S.V. Electricals Ltd. / NITSL with the sole intention of earning profit from the penny stock and therefore, such transaction is clearly ‘adventure in the nature of trade’. He accordingly made addition of Rs.1,52,62,200/- u/s 68 of the Act treating the long term capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such