TATYASAHEB NARAYAN LAGAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

Capital Gains, and income from other sources and deposited cash of Rs.21,40,780/- in Sant Sopan Sahakari Bank Limited during the demonetization period. Entire addition has been made by the AO on account of disbelieving the cash in hand recorded in books of accounts u/s 69A. The deeming fiction u/s 69A can be invoked, where in any financial year

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

capital gain and business income has been accepted. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 18. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Yash Construction Co. vs. ACIT vide ITA Nos.676 & 677/PUN/2024 order dated 31.07.2024 for assessment years

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN, NANDURBAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

capital gain and business income has been accepted. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 18. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Yash Construction Co. vs. ACIT vide ITA Nos.676 & 677/PUN/2024 order dated 31.07.2024 for assessment years

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

capital gain and business income has been accepted. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 18. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Yash Construction Co. vs. ACIT vide ITA Nos.676 & 677/PUN/2024 order dated 31.07.2024 for assessment years

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital gain, income from other sources and agricultural 5 income. The Assessing Officer(AO) in the assessment order observed that assessee had deposited cash in the bank account between 11.11.2016 to 01.12.2016 as under: Date Name of Bank Account Amount(Rs.) 10-11-2016 Corporation Bank 2,00,000/- 11-11-2016 Corporation Bank

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO. ,NANDED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , NANDED

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO.,LATUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

69A, 698 and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor 8 ITA.No.625/PUN./2024 is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections

NANDU ATMARAM WAJEKAR,PANVEL RAIGAD DISTRICT vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL RAIGAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

capital gain’ as against undisclosed income u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by the Assessing Officer. He accordingly submitted the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is not justified in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in treating such income declared under the IDS, 2016 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and charged

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGBAD vs. SHRI PANKAJ RATILAL MUGDIYA, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

gain appreciation rather than keeping the same idle. The assessee in the instant case has been earning the unaccounted income from assessment year 2015-16 and as and when the unaccounted income is earned, the same is invested in gold bars. Therefore, bringing the entire amount to tax in assessment year 2021-22 is not justified. Relying on various decisions

SOPAN BANDOBA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

capital gain which is not the subject matter of appeal before us and therefore, we are not concerned with the same. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,19,55,011/- as against the ‘nil’ business loss wherein he added the amount of Rs.2 crore to be taxed u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

capital gain to multiple entities and the financials clearly show that 8 Kalavathi Devi Sharma the company is a shell company. It was noticed that the appellant is one such beneficiary who received fictitious LTCG during the year under appeal. The Appellant did not furnish any explanation to such findings as mentioned in the impugned Assessment. 10.3. Regarding the exemption

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

capital gains and the same cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A. (iii)The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of exemption u/s 548 in respect of investment in agricultural land and all the conditions have been complied with (iv) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating

AKASH HARESHKUMAR JAIN,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 26.04.2022 declaring total income of Rs.28,13,270/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked

HARESHKUMAR DUNGARMAL JAIN,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

section of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 26.04.2022 declaring total income of Rs.28,13,270/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

capital gain is calculated by considering the WDV as per Income Tax Act. The reason behind the difference in these two mechanisms for arriving at the fair valuation is the question of law. However, the new shareholders might lose the benefit of tax saving on depreciation. Consequently, this element to determine the valuation of the unquoted equity shares

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69A of the Act on account of\nalleged cash transaction undertaken by the assessee firm under the\nreassessment proceedings vide his order u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act based on\nthe statement of one Shri Sachin M. Nahar recorded during the course of\nsearch on the said person The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has upheld the action

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69A of the Act on account of\nalleged cash transaction undertaken by the assessee firm under the\nreassessment proceedings vide his order u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act based on\nthe statement of one Shri Sachin M. Nahar recorded during the course of\nsearch on the said person The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has upheld the action