ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

LAXMI BABU DEBNATH,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1443/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Laxmi Babu Debnath Level-3, Riverside Business Bay, Wellesley Road, Nr. Rto, Pune Pan : Acypd2630F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condonation of delay, admission of additional evidence u/r 46A and on merits of the case and pass speaking order in the manner subscribed by sub-section

LAXMI BABU DEBNATH,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2876 & 2877/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Pan: Acpyd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act resulting into the impugned additions. 5. Aggrieved with the addition made by the ld.Assessing Officer. Assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). There was a delay of 86 days in filing of appeal for both the years for which reasons were filed for condoning the delay. However, ld.CIT(A) did not condone

LAXMI BABU DEBNATH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2876 & 2877/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Pan: Acpyd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act resulting into the impugned additions. 5. Aggrieved with the addition made by the ld.Assessing Officer. Assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). There was a delay of 86 days in filing of appeal for both the years for which reasons were filed for condoning the delay. However, ld.CIT(A) did not condone

SHEKHAR BAJIRAO BHILARE,MAHABALESHWAR vs. I.T.O WARD-4, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. Since information was in possession of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had purchased certain immovable property and since the assessee

DILIP JAWAHARLAL VARYANI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.643/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2011-12 Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, V The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.9/2B, Cts No.905, S Income Tax, Circle-8, Vaibhav Vihar, Near Vikram Pune. Vihar, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Acapv0521H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Vaze, Ca – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Irs–Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.06.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

condone the Delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Ground No.2 : 7. The Ground No.2 is reproduced here as under : “2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax. (A) NFAC Delhi, is not justified in confirming the addition solely on account of non-submission necessary information / documents during

DHANANJAY VASANTRAO DESHMUKH (HUF),AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 24.09.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act (ITA No. 2344/PUN/2025) and penalty order dated 21.01.2022 passed 2 ITA.Nos.2343 & 2344/PUN./2025 (Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh (HUF)) u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act (ITA No. 2343/PUN/2025) for the Assessment Year

GAJANAN AGROFEEDS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIR-1 (2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajanan Agrofeeds Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Cir-1(2), Pune. 3, Sushila Complex, Station Vs Road, Baramati, Pune – 413102. Pan: Aaccg 3651 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 17.01.2020For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances In The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Erred In Rejecting The Additional Evidences Filled Under Section 46A Of The Income Tax Rules, 1961 Without Realizing The Fact That Such Additional Evidences Ought To Have Been Admitted As It Goes To The Root Cause Of Issue & Therefore, Prayer Is Made For Admission Of Additional Evidences. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances In The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.86,09,000/- Being Unsecured Loans From Sister Concern By Invoking Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By Rejecting The Submissions Made In This Regard & Also Additional Evidences Submitted.

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 without realizing the fact that such additional evidences ought to have been admitted as it goes to the root cause of issue and therefore, prayer is made for admission of additional evidences. 2. On the facts and the circumstances in the case and in law the lower authorities erred in making addition

RAJKUMAR PARSHURAM MHATRE,POYNAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD PANVEL

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 08.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,15,020/-. The case 3 was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly statutory notices

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 4 years for filing the application under section 154 of the IT Act due to reasonable cause and genuine in nature and we consider accordingly, it is a fit case for remand for proper adjudication of the case by following the established procedure laid down. under rules 46A

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 4 years for filing the application under section 154 of the IT Act due to reasonable cause and genuine in nature and we consider accordingly, it is a fit case for remand for proper adjudication of the case by following the established procedure laid down. under rules 46A

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 4 years for filing the application under section 154 of the IT Act due to reasonable cause and genuine in nature and we consider accordingly, it is a fit case for remand for proper adjudication of the case by following the established procedure laid down. under rules 46A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of developing properties. It filed its return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.8,46,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS

IMPERIAL HOUSING, PUNE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of developing properties. It filed its return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.8,46,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

section 154 of the Act was not properly disposed off\nwithout providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. In the\ninterest of equity and justice, the appeal of the assessee is remand\nto the file of the CIT (A) to decide it afresh by providing adequate\nopportunity of hearing to the assessee. We don't have any hesitation\nto condone

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

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

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

46A of the Income Tax Rules, despite the fact that specific ground of appeal was raised in this regard. 8. That, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has passed the order u/s 250 in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without appreciating the overall facts of the case