RAJENDRA SHIVAJI THETE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Shivanjali, Plot No.25, H.No.4669, Shivaji Nagar, Ozar Mig, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Abwpt0060C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai : 09.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,49,704/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under Reporting Of Income In Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

condoning the delay of 223 days in filing the appeal before him & has not gone into merits of the case. From the statement of facts, we find that the assessee is a salaried employee & belongs to technical background. The return of most of the employees of CEAT Co., Bosch Company, HAL & Mahindra & Mahindra including that of the assessee was filed

JASMINE ZUBIN SHROFF,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2380/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Jasmine Zubin Shroff V The Income Tax (Through Legal Heir Zubin K S Officer, Shroff), Ward-7(1), Pune. 826/C No.5, Anklesharia Blocks, Dastur Meher Road, Camp, Pune - 411001. Pan:Basps7144E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B C Malakar Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Legal Heir Of Late Jasmine Z. Shroff Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 19.12.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The

condone the delay of 593 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Submission of ld.DR : 4. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR filed copy of the reasons recorded by ITO for reopening. Findings and Analysis: 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 14,85,000/-by invoking provisions of section 69A of Income Tax Act 1961.on the basis of declaration

SUBHASH KHUSHALCHAND SHAH,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (TDS),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.685/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Dilip Khushalchand Shah Vs. Ito (Tds), Prop. Of Ramsina Metal Corporation, Kolhapur 1-401, C Ward, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur-416002 Pan: Aekps0058L Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.686/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Subhash Khushalchand Shah Vs. Ito (Tds), Prop. Of Pradip Metals, Kolhapur Shop No.53, Kotitirth Market, Kolhapur-416002 Pan: Adnps2453B Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.687/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Pradip Khushalchand Shah Vs. Ito (Tds), Prop. Of M/S. Sha Khushalchand Kolhapur Vanechand & Sons, 1399-C, Kolhapur-416002 Pan: Adnps2457F Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits. 3. The only issue raised through all the appeals is against determining certain liability u/s 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. The facts relating to ITA No.685/PUN/2018 are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Ramsina Metal

DILIP KHUSHALCHAND SHAH,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (TDS),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.685/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Dilip Khushalchand Shah Vs. Ito (Tds), Prop. Of Ramsina Metal Corporation, Kolhapur 1-401, C Ward, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur-416002 Pan: Aekps0058L Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.686/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Subhash Khushalchand Shah Vs. Ito (Tds), Prop. Of Pradip Metals, Kolhapur Shop No.53, Kotitirth Market, Kolhapur-416002 Pan: Adnps2453B Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.687/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Pradip Khushalchand Shah Vs. Ito (Tds), Prop. Of M/S. Sha Khushalchand Kolhapur Vanechand & Sons, 1399-C, Kolhapur-416002 Pan: Adnps2457F Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits. 3. The only issue raised through all the appeals is against determining certain liability u/s 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. The facts relating to ITA No.685/PUN/2018 are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Ramsina Metal

MANISH JASHWANTRAI BHUTA,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta Ito, Ward 1(1), Nashik Flat No.8, Pooja Apartment, Vs. Shivam Nagar, Hirawadi, Panchavati, Nashik – 422003 Pan: Aghpb1619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish M. Mehta Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,65,210/-. Information was received by the Assessing Officer through Insight portal that during the financial year

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,JALGAON vs. THE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 296/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt Taradevi R Bafna 91, Subhash Chow, Jalgaon. Pan : Aadpb9424E . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Nasik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/10/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Challenged Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-12), Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/07/2018 For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 28/06/2017 Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-1(3), Nasik [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271Aab Of The Act.

133A of the Act was simultaneously carried out on 10/09/2014, consequently during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B of the Act, the assessee returned an income of ₹47,50,43,810/- by filing original return of income [for short “ITR”] incorporating an additional income ₹28,00,00,000/- declared during the survey action

HOTEL SURYA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WAD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First, we take up ITA No.395/PUN/2025 for assessment year 2017-18 as the lead case. 4. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing

HOTEL SURYA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First, we take up ITA No.395/PUN/2025 for assessment year 2017-18 as the lead case. 4. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing

MR. DEVIDAS DYANESHWAR KHANDVE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.566/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.Devidas Dyaneshwar Khandve, The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.187, Opp.32 Room, Vs Income Tax, Circle-12, Lohegaon, Chirikle Colony, Near Pune. Water Tank, Pune – 411047. Pan: Akgpk 0229 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 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(Appeals), Pune-5’S, Order Dated 10.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Involving Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A)-V Erred In Law & In Levying The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Therefore, Levied Penalty Of Rs.65,87,295/- Without Considering Suo Moto Filing Of Revised Return After The Survey Action U/S 133A.”

133A of the Act was carried out on assessee on 18.01.2013. During the course of survey, the statement of the assessee was recorded and tentative Trading Account was prepared. As per the Tentative Trading Account, the assessee had declared total income at Rs.1,49,17,489/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer(AO) levied penalty under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

delay in filing of the CO is condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private company, engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. It filed its return of income on 23.12.2011 declaring total loss of Rs.26,873/-. The assessment was completed

SHRI VIJAYPAL KISHORILAL SHARMA ,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First, we take up ITA No.2561/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2008-09 as the lead case. 4. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing

SHRI VIJAYPAL KISHORILAL SHARMA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. First, we take up ITA No.2561/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2008-09 as the lead case. 4. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing

SHRI MAHENDRA HARI DALVI,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, PANVEL

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 133A on account of investments made by him and also the fact that he had disclosed this income in his return for A Y 2010-11”. 5. Learned counsel strongly argued that the impugned addition amount has already been assessed in assessment year 2010-11 assessment going by the assessee‟s corresponding search statement and therefore, the same amounts

MAHENDRA HARI DALVI,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, PANVEL

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 133A on account of investments made by him and also the fact that he had disclosed this income in his return for A Y 2010-11”. 5. Learned counsel strongly argued that the impugned addition amount has already been assessed in assessment year 2010-11 assessment going by the assessee‟s corresponding search statement and therefore, the same amounts