BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

delay of 03 days is condoned. 3. We find that the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. First, we shall take up appeal

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

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.] 6.2 This has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 405 ITR 1. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Subash Chander

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

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.] 6.2 This has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 405 ITR 1. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Subash Chander

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

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.] 6.2 This has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 405 ITR 1. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Subash Chander

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

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.] 6.2 This has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 405 ITR 1. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Subash Chander

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

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

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or\nafter the completion of the assessment, whichever is\nearlier.]\n6.2 This has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nAbhishek Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 405 ITR 1.\nFurther, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of\nSubash Chander

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

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

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or\nafter the completion of the assessment, whichever is\nearlier.]\n6.2 This has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nAbhishek Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 405 ITR 1.\nFurther, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of\nSubash Chander

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

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

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

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

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

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

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

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

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

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

VIKAS DATTU DEOKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vikas Dattu Deokar, V The Income Tax Officer, S.N.126/1, Plat No.18A, S Ward-14(1), Pune. Z Corner, Matoshri Niwas, Manjari Bk, Manjari Budruk, Po: Manjari Farm, Dist: Pune, Maharashtra – 412307. Pan: Aispd7124N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee 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.2016-17 Dated 20.02.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 17.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, ITA No.1012/PUN/2025 [A] ld.CIT(A) has passed an order for A.Y.2016-17 on 20.02.2025 u/s.250 r.w.s 254 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Ironically, ld.CIT(A) has not bothered to decide the assessee’s appeal on merits, but, merely set it aside to Assessing Officer claiming that the Assessment Order was u/s.144

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

delaying the process of claiming deduction under\nSection 80IA/IB of the Act. All this would indicate that Assessing\nOfficer had formed an opinion while passing the order dated 9 th\nMarch, 2005. This Court in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v/s. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax 367 ITR 405 had occasion to consider\nsomewhat similar submission made by the Revenue and negatived

NARESH J. KARDA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1525/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Shri Naresh J. Karda Prop. M/S. Karda Construwell, 8, Saikrupa Complex, Behind Jairam Hospital, Nashik Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422101 …. Pan: Abbpk8084A Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-2, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

153A of the Act. During the course of search, certain documents were found and on the basis of seized documents, the assessee had offered certain additional income. However, the Assessing Officer worked out the additional income at ₹ 2,08,165/-. Penalty proceedings under Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated for concealment of this

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee 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.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find