SIDDHESHWAR INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd., 2(2), Pune. Plot No.A-50, H- Block, Midc, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aagcs4976E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing 09.03.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 23.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. [A] 12 Has Erred By Wrongly Enhance The Amount Of Rs.2,95,00,000/- By Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 43B In Revised Return Of Income Filed U/S 153A Of The I T Act. The Aforesaid Addition Being Arbitrary, Perverse, Based On Surmises & Conjecture

condone the delay of 95 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of spare parts and engineering goods. The return of income for the assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

delay is condoned and the Cross Objection is admitted for adjudication. 5. Cross Objections raised by the assessee are extracted as under : “1. The Ld.CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that addition made w.r.t. of Georai Land is without any incriminating material found during the course of search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

delay is condoned and the Cross Objection is admitted for adjudication. 5. Cross Objections raised by the assessee are extracted as under : “1. The Ld.CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that addition made w.r.t. of Georai Land is without any incriminating material found during the course of search

SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

delay is condoned and the Cross Objection is admitted for adjudication. 5. Cross Objections raised by the assessee are extracted as under : “1. The Ld.CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that addition made w.r.t. of Georai Land is without any incriminating material found during the course of search

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

seizure action at third party & hence, consequential proceedings pertaining to search & requisition ought to have been issued u/s 153C rather than 147 of the ITA, 1961. Place: Ahmednagar Date:11/11/2024 Somnath Ramdas Jadhav 5. The appellant, in addition to filing Additional Grounds, also requested to grant further adjournment. However, this cannot be accepted on the fact that the AO issued

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

seizure action at third party & hence, consequential proceedings pertaining to search & requisition ought to have been issued u/s 153C rather than 147 of the ITA, 1961. Place: Ahmednagar Date:11/11/2024 Somnath Ramdas Jadhav 5. The appellant, in addition to filing Additional Grounds, also requested to grant further adjournment. However, this cannot be accepted on the fact that the AO issued

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

seizure action at third party & hence, consequential proceedings pertaining to search & requisition ought to have been issued u/s 153C rather than 147 of the ITA, 1961. Place: Ahmednagar Date:11/11/2024 Somnath Ramdas Jadhav 5. The appellant, in addition to filing Additional Grounds, also requested to grant further adjournment. However, this cannot be accepted on the fact that the AO issued

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

seizure action at third party & hence, consequential proceedings pertaining to search & requisition ought to have been issued u/s 153C rather than 147 of the ITA, 1961. Place: Ahmednagar Date:11/11/2024 Somnath Ramdas Jadhav 5. The appellant, in addition to filing Additional Grounds, also requested to grant further adjournment. However, this cannot be accepted on the fact that the AO issued

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

search & Seizure\naction u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 carried out in case of the M/s.\nShri Renuka Mate Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society\nLtd. (in short Society/SRMSCS) on 26.05.2017, it was found that\nthe huge money was deposited in the bank accounts maintained\nin the society and during the course of assessment proceedings\nthe society could

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

search & Seizure\naction u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 carried out in case of the M/s.\nShri Renuka Mate Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society\nLtd. (in short Society/SRMSCS) on 26.05.2017, it was found that\nthe huge money was deposited in the bank accounts maintained\nin the society and during the course of assessment proceedings\nthe society could

SOPAN DHONDIBA TUPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1196/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

seizure action u/s.132A of the Act was conducted in Tupe Group on 13.02.2009 wherein the assessee was covered. During the course of search, certain incriminating material in the form of note books, diaries and loose papers were seized which revealed land transactions of the Tupe family and distribution of money among the family members. Consequent to search, the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRADDHA CONSTRUCTIONS & POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

condonable considering the small delay of only 16 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 16. Brief facts include that the search team noticed during the search & seizure

M/S. SIDDHARTH INFRATECH P.LTD,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 116/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddharth Infratech P. Ltd. 47, Ramdas Colony, Nr. Sagar Park, Jalgaon-425001. Pan : Aancs1550K .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 4. The brief facts in this case are that a search and seizure

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 4. The facts and grounds are common in both the appeals, therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. Accordingly, the appeal-wise adjudication is taken up in the following paragraphs. ITA No.2795/PUN/2016

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 4. The facts and grounds are common in both the appeals, therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. Accordingly, the appeal-wise adjudication is taken up in the following paragraphs. ITA No.2795/PUN/2016

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

seizure action conduced against this appellant is not valid in the absence of existence of reason to believe about existence of one or more of the eventualities catalogued in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 132 which is the sine qua non to entitle the authority to make authorization as required

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

seizure action conduced against this appellant is not valid in the absence of existence of reason to believe about existence of one or more of the eventualities catalogued in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 132 which is the sine qua non to entitle the authority to make authorization as required

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

seizure action conduced against this appellant is not valid in the absence of existence of reason to believe about existence of one or more of the eventualities catalogued in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of S. 132 which is the sine qua non to entitle the authority to make authorization as required