JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis of the information received through the Insight portal from DDIT(Inv.) Unit 3(3) Delhi and there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to arrive reason to believe that income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

84,35,789 cost incurred during\nthe year of Rs.327,42,32,668 closing WIP of Rs.396,30,86,527 CENVAT credit of\nRs.10,54,94,659) on cost of sales (construction) during the year and it is exclusive\nof finance cost. Further, It is noticed that the assessee had debited entire interest\nexpenses of Rs.32

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified after which several search and\nsurvey operations were conducted in office premises of more than 32 share broking\nentities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term\ncapital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was\ncarried out in the case of M/s PFLIL

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

84,455 Total Sale Consideration of sale of flats F.Y 2013-14 1,00,95,640 F.Y. 2014-15 4,36,94,201 F.Y.2015-16 2,33,36,161 F.Y. 2016-17 3,67,25,561 F.Y. 2017-18 3,39,52,354 14,78,03,917 19. He accordingly submitted that once the transfer has taken place the capital gain

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

gain income declared by the assessee during the course of survey\nis concerned, we find the Assessing Officer levied the penalty on the ground that\nduring the course of survey it was noticed that the assessee has converted the land\nin question which was a capital asset into stock in trade in financial year 2010-11\nand never disclosed

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

84, M.G. Road, Agra 282 010, Uttar Pradesh PAN : AABTA6327K Vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Pune\nAppellant Respondent\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.417/PUN/2023\n4. AIDS Society of India, Ground Floor, Maharukh Mandsion, Alibhai Premji Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai 400 007 Maharashtra PAN : AABTA4129R Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Pune\nAppellant Respondent\n2\nITA No.518, 522, 549 and 417/PUN/2023 Poona

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified after which several search and survey operations were conducted in office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified after which several search and survey operations were conducted in office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified after which several search and survey operations were conducted in office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL

BHARATNAGAR BUILDCON LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ABIL BUILDCON LLP),PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2, , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.284/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

1) the issue of cost of acquisition of the debentures transferred by the assessee was not looked into by the AO and (2) that the assessee wrongly claimed deduction towards the Remuneration to partners anent to its income from long term capital gain. Eventually, he set-aside the assessment order and directed the AO to make the assessment afresh. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

84,93,182/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to examine the following issues: (i) Default in TDS (ii) Default in TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

84,93,182/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to examine the following issues: (i) Default in TDS (ii) Default in TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised

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

84,79,495/-. While doing so, the TPO had rejected the CUP method as the most appropriate method and proceeded with the benchmarking of the above transactions by adopting external TNMM as the most appropriate method. While adopting OP/OC as a PLI, the TPO proceeded to benchmark the international transactions by selecting comparables, which were selected by the assessee company

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

84,79,495/-. While doing so, the TPO had rejected the CUP method as the most appropriate method and proceeded with the benchmarking of the above transactions by adopting external TNMM as the most appropriate method. While adopting OP/OC as a PLI, the TPO proceeded to benchmark the international transactions by selecting comparables, which were selected by the assessee company

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

84,843 (Appellant‟s brother) 19.1.2011 Jyoti A. Kotecha 19.1.2011 to 78,925 1,35,49,484.00 171.67 1,26,02,384 (appellant‟s brother‟s wife) 25.3.2011 TOTAL 3,15,700 5,74,12,843.79 181.85 5,36,24,713 14 As per appellant, all the members who have purchased and sold the shares of S.V. Electricals had disclosed

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

1. Accommodation loan entries\n9\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\n6.2.1 The AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 148 of the act\non 28/12/2018 by making a total addition of Rs 2,79,78,912/-. The addition of this\namount has been made by the assessing officer by arriving at the figure of net\ncredit

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

1. Accommodation loan entries\n9\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\n6.2.1 The AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 148 of the act\non 28/12/2018 by making a total addition of Rs 2,79,78,912/-. The addition of this\namount has been made by the assessing officer by arriving at the figure of net\ncredit

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

section 548 of the Act. it becomes evident that exemption uls.548(1) is subject to the assessee depositing the amount of unutilized capital gain in a designated bank account within the time provided uls.139 of the Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the appellant was a non-filer for the impugned