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"

undisclosed income assessable in the hands of the assessee going by the concept of real income. He shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. AO is directed to apply the ratio laid down by the above referred judgments in general and the ratio laid down by the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE ,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause merits dismissal, ergo ordered accordingly. 6. We now deal with ITA No. 1919/PUN/2017; wherein we note that; 6.1 The appellant assessee is public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and is also registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G of the Act. 6.2 The assessee society

EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY, AURANGABAD ,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, EXEMTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause merits dismissal, ergo ordered accordingly. 6. We now deal with ITA No. 1919/PUN/2017; wherein we note that; 6.1 The appellant assessee is public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and is also registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G of the Act. 6.2 The assessee society

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

MANOHAR WAMAN PANDAGALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

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

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

undisclosed capital gain and (iii) Rs.75,896/- on account of interest income. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 755 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone

VIJAYMALA VILAS KALOKHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-10(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

undisclosed LTCG, thereby assessing the total income of Rs. 2,66,70,989 to the returned income of Rs. 2,87,780/-. 2. Appellant contends that, notice u/s 148 of ITA, 1961 dated 21/07/2022 issued without following mandatory procedure laid down in 148A proceedings and without following law laid down by Rajiv Bansal (2024] 167 toxmann.com

CHANDRABHAN SURYABHAN SHINE,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

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

undisclosed long term capital gain and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.96,74,217/- in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3 5. Since there was a delay of 143 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone

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 action was conducted in the Kotecha group of cases on 09.08.2011. The assessee was covered in this action. The case of the assessee was centralized vide order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nashik dated

SARIKA ZENDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1776/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21

undisclosed speculative profit. 3. Aggrieved assessee challenged the assessment made by the AO before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC but with a delay of 191 days. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable, without condoning the delay. 4. Further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the appeal is called

MR. ANANDA KONDU AKHADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay in filing present appeal be kindly condoned and Appellant be allowed to present his appeal in the interest of justice. 6. It is humbly prayed that the Appellant be kindly allowed to file any additional evidences in the interest of justice, if any. 7. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds

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

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 AOP and engaged in agricultural activities. It filed its return of income on 20.10.2017 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the norms of CASS. Accordingly statutory notices

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

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

undisclosed bank accounts to be taxed in preceding years and income offered to tax in the preceding years and current year. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter above or any other ground/s of appeal.” 3. At the very outset, we observe that there is delay of 72 days. The assessee has filed affidavit along with petition regarding condonation

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

undisclosed bank accounts to be taxed in preceding years and income offered to tax in the preceding years and current year. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter above or any other ground/s of appeal.” 3. At the very outset, we observe that there is delay of 72 days. The assessee has filed affidavit along with petition regarding condonation

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

undisclosed bank accounts to be taxed in preceding years and income offered to tax in the preceding years and current year. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter above or any other ground/s of appeal.” 3. At the very outset, we observe that there is delay of 72 days. The assessee has filed affidavit along with petition regarding condonation

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

undisclosed bank accounts to be taxed in preceding years and income offered to tax in the preceding years and current year. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter above or any other ground/s of appeal.” 3. At the very outset, we observe that there is delay of 72 days. The assessee has filed affidavit along with petition regarding condonation