KEDAR ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. TDS WARD 2 , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

274 days accordingly CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad has levied fees u/s 234E at the rate of Rs.200 per day while processing the return electronically on 23.11.2013. This intimation u/s 200A of the IT Act dated 23.11.2013 issued by the CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad for the Q2 of financial year 2012-13 was claimed to be not received by the assessee

KEDAR ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. TDS WARD 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

274 days accordingly CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad has levied fees u/s 234E at the rate of Rs.200 per day while processing the return electronically on 23.11.2013. This intimation u/s 200A of the IT Act dated 23.11.2013 issued by the CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad for the Q2 of financial year 2012-13 was claimed to be not received by the assessee

KEDAR ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. TDS WARD 2 PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

274 days accordingly CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad has levied fees u/s 234E at the rate of Rs.200 per day while processing the return electronically on 23.11.2013. This intimation u/s 200A of the IT Act dated 23.11.2013 issued by the CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad for the Q2 of financial year 2012-13 was claimed to be not received by the assessee

KEDAR ASSOCIATES ,PUNE vs. TDS WARD 2 , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

274 days accordingly CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad has levied fees u/s 234E at the rate of Rs.200 per day while processing the return electronically on 23.11.2013. This intimation u/s 200A of the IT Act dated 23.11.2013 issued by the CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad for the Q2 of financial year 2012-13 was claimed to be not received by the assessee

VTP FOODS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

condonation of delay of 519 days in filing the appeal since there was reasonable cause on its part for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. 2] The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.50,99,000/- made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposit in the bank account

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

condoning the delay in filing of appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 3: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. CIT(A) bas ermed in maintaining the penalty of Rs. 71,75,281 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

condoning the delay in filing of appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 3: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. CIT(A) bas ermed in maintaining the penalty of Rs. 71,75,281 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied

NARENDRA P. MUSALE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. That with regard to the ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the facts on record are that as per AIR information received the assessee has deposited cash in three saving bank account with Vishwas Co-operative bank. Information u/s.133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

NARENDRA P. MUSALE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. That with regard to the ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the facts on record are that as per AIR information received the assessee has deposited cash in three saving bank account with Vishwas Co-operative bank. Information u/s.133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

NARENDRA P. MUSALE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. That with regard to the ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the facts on record are that as per AIR information received the assessee has deposited cash in three saving bank account with Vishwas Co-operative bank. Information u/s.133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

NARENDRA P.MUSALE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. That with regard to the ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the facts on record are that as per AIR information received the assessee has deposited cash in three saving bank account with Vishwas Co-operative bank. Information u/s.133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

RUPESH MAHENDRA KANKARIYA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, AHMEDNAHGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.465/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Ahmednagar. B Namrata Marbles, Tilak Road, Ahmednagar- 414001. Pan : Arspk8493L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Kimaya Kudva Revenue By Shri Milind Debaje : Date Of Hearing 22.04.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In; I. Concluding That The Appellant'S Request For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Without Any Reasonable Cause, Rejecting The Application & Dismissing The Appeal In Limine. Ii. Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Adjudicating The Ground Challenging Levy Of Penalty Of Appeal On Merits.

condonation of delay in filing the appeal was without any reasonable cause, rejecting the application and dismissing the appeal in limine. ii. Dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the ground challenging levy of penalty of appeal on merits. 2 2. The appellant pleads that the notices seeking information and fixing hearing were served via email through ITBA portal

LAXMAN RAGHUNATH INGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 3. The crux of the grievance of the assessee is the levy of penalty by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) without specifying the limb for which penalty has been imposed in the notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271

M/S. SHIVAJI YASHWANT KARPE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Penalty – Limbs related issue 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the assessee include that the assessee is engaged in Medical profession and also derives income from Agriculture. During the impugned assessment year, assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,20,000/-. As per the AIR information

KASTURILAL SARDARILAL LUTHRA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2561 & 2562/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra, Urmil, Shrin Meadows, Gangapur Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Aafpl4629P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 1, Nashik

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Both the appeals of assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.2561 & 2562/PUN/2016 2 Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra 3. Both the appeals have been filed after delay of 26 days. Since

KASTURILAL SARDARILAL LUTHRA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2561 & 2562/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra, Urmil, Shrin Meadows, Gangapur Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Aafpl4629P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle 1, Nashik

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Both the appeals of assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.2561 & 2562/PUN/2016 2 Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra 3. Both the appeals have been filed after delay of 26 days. Since

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.

delay stands condoned in the larger interest of justice. 8. We shall now deal with ground number 1 and 2 first, which alleges the deficiency in the SCN dt 28/12/2016 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 to the appellant pursuant to which the penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is levied, it’s apt to quote the text of the such

SAMARTH NAGARI SHAKARI PATH SANSTHA MARYADIT,PARBHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE, JALNA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

condoning the delay. 2. (a) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs.33,23,274/- under section