M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM.OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

7,17,05,933/- which were not allowed by the AO in the computation, on the ground that no such disallowance/discussion was made in the assessment order. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not exercising his powers as conferred in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec.251

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

94,03,000/- claimed to be received during FY 2012-13. c) No donation receipts books have been maintained for any of the period starting from FY 2011-12 to FY 2018-19. d) Since most of the donors have denied having made any donations to the assessee trust, the claim of donations made in the books of accounts from

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

94,03,000/- claimed to be received during FY 2012-13. c) No donation receipts books have been maintained for any of the period starting from FY 2011-12 to FY 2018-19. d) Since most of the donors have denied having made any donations to the assessee trust, the claim of donations made in the books of accounts from

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

94,03,000/- claimed to be received during FY 2012-13. c) No donation receipts books have been maintained for any of the period starting from FY 2011-12 to FY 2018-19. d) Since most of the donors have denied having made any donations to the assessee trust, the claim of donations made in the books of accounts from

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

7) of\nSection 43(1) and Explanation-2 of Section 43(6) of the IT Act 1961\nestablishes that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is\nnot allowable.\nResultantly, the claims made by the appellant in support of this ground do\nnot have any merit. Therefore, the addition made by assessing officer on\naccount of disallowance

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

94,03,000/- claimed to be\nreceived during FY 2012-13.\nc)\nNo donation receipts books have been maintained for any of\nthe period starting from FY 2011-12 to FY 2018-19.\nd)\nSince most of the donors have denied having made any\ndonations to the assessee trust, the claim of donations made in the\nbooks of accounts from

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

94,03,000/- claimed to be\nreceived during FY 2012-13.\nc) No donation receipts books have been maintained for any of\nthe period starting from FY 2011-12 to FY 2018-19.\nd) Since most of the donors have denied having made any\ndonations to the assessee trust, the claim of donations made in the\nbooks of accounts from

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

94,03,000/- claimed to be\nreceived during FY 2012-13.\nc) No donation receipts books have been maintained for any of\nthe period starting from FY 2011-12 to FY 2018-19.\nd) Since most of the donors have denied having made any\ndonations to the assessee trust, the claim of donations made in the\nbooks of accounts from

JITENDRA AMRITA RAUNDAL,KALWAN, NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(5), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are applicable and long term capital gain of Rs.1,94,65,174/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer after recording reasons initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act 2 was issued and served

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

7 Tejashree Atul Patil ld. PCIT assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. We find that the provision of Section 263 of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us, therefore, it is pertinent to take note of this section which reads as under: "263(1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding

SHRIRAM SAHADEV RAWOOL,SINDHUDURG vs. ITO, WARD-1, KUDAL, KUDAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Shriram Sahadev Rawool Ito, Ward – 1, Kudal At Post Parule, Near Vetoba Vs. Temple, Vengarle, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra – 416510 Pan: Ahmpr7876C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

94,57,000/- but had failed to disclose the capital gain by filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act with the prior approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 dated 25.02.2020 was issued and served on the assessee. However, there

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

94,500/- in cheque (as per the agreement) from the assessee. Apart from this Tapadiya family members, namely, Mrs. Deepa Tapadiya and Mr. Yash Tapadiya received Rs.61,98,429/- and Rs.35,75,640/- respectively in cash from the assessee which was not accounted for, during the assessment year 2006-07. The same was offered for taxation by Tapadiya family members

PARAG MILK FOODS LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Parag Milk Foods Ltd., The Assistant Awasari Phata,Village Manchar, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tal - Ambegaon, Tax, Circle-4, Pune. Dist-Pune – 411503. Pan: Aabcp 0425 G Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)[Ld.Cit(A)], Pune-11 Dated 04.02.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2018 For A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Making An Addition Of Rs.1,15,71,588/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Has Not Complied With The Conditions Which Are Necessary To Claim Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act & Failed To Furnish Any Concrete Evidence To Prove That The Parag Milk Foods Ltd., [A]

94 pages. The paper book contained copy of Income Tax Return filed by the assessee, Audit Report, Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account, copy of Master Policy of LIC, copy of submission made by the assessee before the AO and ld.CIT(A). 5.1 The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) submitted that assessee has fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility to claim 7

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. GHANSHYAM M KACHI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryacit, Circle-6, Vs Ghanshyam M. Kachi, Pune. 1101, Raviwar Peth, Pune-411 002 Pan: Aqwpk 4253 H Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee C.O.No. 11/Pun/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2127/Pun/2017) (A.Y. 2014-15) Ghanshyam M. Kachi, Vs Acit, Circle-6, 1101, Raviwar Peth, Pune. Pune-411 002 Pan: Aqwpk 4253 H Applicant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

94,79,600/-, the 3 C.O.No. 11/PUN/2021 Ghanshyam M. Kachi AO had denied the benefit on the ground that there was no agreement to purchase the property as well as the housing project has not commenced. As regards the claim of exemption u/s 54EC amounting to Rs.50,00,000/-, the AO disallowed the claim for exemption u/sec.54EC in respect

AMRUTA VIVEK PADALIKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR

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

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

94,500/-. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 3. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,25,69,500/- as short long-term capital gain when no capital asset is transferred by the appellant. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 4. On facts

AMRUTA VIVEK PADALIKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOLHPAUR

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

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

94,500/-. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 3. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,25,69,500/- as short long-term capital gain when no capital asset is transferred by the appellant. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 4. On facts

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), PUNE vs. SURESH KUMAR LAKHOTIA , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

gains, other sources and exempt income earned over last 20 years. • There is merely change in disclosure / presentation in ITR by reporting opening personal capital as on 01.04.2017 and not actual addition of capital during the year. • In support of above contention, documentary evidences such as details of income from AY2006-07 to AY2017-18, CA certified personal balance sheets

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

94,34,790/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was carried out on 23.09.2021 in the case of Metarolls group of cases at Jalna and all other concerns related to this group of cases wherein the case of the assessee was also covered. The case was selected