DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains by invoking the provision of Section 50C of the Act, which was clearly not applicable in the assessees' case.” 8. The similar issue has been considered by ITAT Ranchi Bench in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/RAN/2018 order dated 20.01.2020. The finding of the Tribunal in paragraph

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

capitation fees are merely based on the statement of\nemployees which have been subsequently retracted and the Pendrive\nand loose document found at the residential premises of employee has\nalso been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing\nTrustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such\nalleged transaction in the statement given

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

vii) Alrameez Construction (P) Ltd. Vis. CIT (NFAC), Delhi reported in (2023) 152 taxman.com 382 (Mumbal Tribunal). In this case Hon. Mumbai ITAT held that if the penalty notice does not mention which limb of section 270A is attracted and how ingredients of section 270A is satisfied, mere reference to the word "under reporting" or "misreporting" in the assessment order

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

vii) Alrameez Construction (P) Ltd. Vis. CIT (NFAC), Delhi reported in (2023) 152 taxman.com 382 (Mumbal Tribunal). In this case Hon. Mumbai ITAT held that if the penalty notice does not mention which limb of section 270A is attracted and how ingredients of section 270A is satisfied, mere reference to the word "under reporting" or "misreporting" in the assessment order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

9. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings holding that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not sustainable in law by observing as under: “5.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. As per the above submission filed by the appellant, it is seen that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

9. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings holding that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not sustainable in law by observing as under: “5.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. As per the above submission filed by the appellant, it is seen that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

9. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings holding that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not sustainable in law by observing as under: “5.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. As per the above submission filed by the appellant, it is seen that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

9. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings holding that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not sustainable in law by observing as under: “5.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. As per the above submission filed by the appellant, it is seen that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

9. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings holding that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not sustainable in law by observing as under: “5.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. As per the above submission filed by the appellant, it is seen that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

9. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings holding that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not sustainable in law by observing as under: “5.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. As per the above submission filed by the appellant, it is seen that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

9. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the re-assessment proceedings holding that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is not sustainable in law by observing as under: “5.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. As per the above submission filed by the appellant, it is seen that

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

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

capitation fees are merely based on the statement of employees which have been subsequently retracted and the Pendrive and loose document found at the residential premises of employee has also been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing Trustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such alleged transaction in the statement given

NINAD ARUN DIWAKAR,NASHIK vs. ITO, ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1318/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ninad Arun Diwakar, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.F-98, Midc, S Acti Circle-1, Nashik. Satpur Nashik – 422007. Pan: Ahepd7516M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 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 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y.2022-23 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Capital Gain deposit scheme on account of non-confirmation from the State Bank of India in response to notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income tax Act. 1961 ("the Act") and presuming arbitrarily Certificate issued by State Bank of India as Self-made without any contrary evidences on record iii) That Appellant had very much discharged his duty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

1 )(vii) and not hit by Section 36(l)(via) at all. 47. Detailed arguments on the allowability of the claim has been made by the assessee before the AO and the CIT(A). The order clearly notes the interpretation advanced by the assessee. No factual inaccuracies have been pointed out the lower authorities. It is mere case

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

9 to Shivchand Parakh, partner of 12/209 to 211 assessee, recorded in response to summons issued u/s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 20.10.2015 Originally, the plots of Makhmalabad were agreed to be sold to M/s Dhananjay Marketing Private Ltd. of Thakkar Group of Nashik vide agreement dt. 25th April 2013. Necessary documents were also executed

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 263 of the Act, it 6 has been mentioned that the powers of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. It is undisputed fact that the matter of "Cost of Improvement claimed by the assessee for arising at Capital Gains is not a subject

VIKAS BHAGOJI SHINDE,PIMPRI PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(4) AKURDI , NIGDI PRADHIKARAN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1879/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Bhagoji Shinde, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(4), Akurdi. 517/2496, Akshay Hsg Society, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri- 411018. Pan : Adyps0967P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Authorities Below Erred In Making & Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3050000 U/S 56(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act When The Amount Paid To The Seller As Well As To Others For Cancellation Of Deeds Of This Property Is More Than The Market Valuation. The Addition Made On This Account Be Deleted & Just & Proper Relief Be Granted To The Assessee In This Respect.

section 56(vii)(b) of the IT Act as well as of short-term capital gain calculated on the basis of so-called sale of immovable property. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 23rd

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

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income