RUHEENA BEGUM SHAIKH AMIR,,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay is condoned and the case is heard on merits. 5. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of retail trade in automotive fuel and petrol pump. The assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 27-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 9,73,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS

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

unexplained cash credit within the meaning of 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

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

unexplained cash credit within the meaning of 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

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

unexplained cash credit within the meaning of 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

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

unexplained money. There are huge cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account held with Bank of Maharashtra. Information was called from the bank u/s.133(6) of the Act to which the details of cash deposits other credit entries were provided. Assessee is claiming that the cash deposits are the funds received from various individual persons for transfer to country

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

unexplained money. There are huge cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account held with Bank of Maharashtra. Information was called from the bank u/s.133(6) of the Act to which the details of cash deposits other credit entries were provided. Assessee is claiming that the cash deposits are the funds received from various individual persons for transfer to country

MACHINDRA BABURAO SUKE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the observations made in the order

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 214 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Assessee has raised as many as 15 grounds of appeal raising various issues which revolve around the following three additions confirmed by ld.CIT(A) : (a) Unexplained money u/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE – Rs.2,35,000/- (b) Unexplained cash credit

SHRI NIRMAL SHARAD MUTHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon. & Nirmal Sharad Mutha, Vs Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, Plot No.83, Manik Nagar, Ahmednagar. Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar. Pan: Afvpm 3572 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune, Dated 03.03.2020 For A.Y.2012-13 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

delay of 1004 days is condoned and the case is heard and discussed on merits. 3. The relevant facts pertaining to ground No.2 for confirmation of addition by ld. CIT(A) u/sec. 68 of the Act of Rs.2,40,00,000/- are that this addition was made on account of unexplained cash credit

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

condone the delay of 445\ndays in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and\nadmit the appeal for adjudication.\n4. Since most of the grounds raised in these two appeals are\ncommon, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of\nconsolidated order for the sake of convenience.\n5. We will first take up ITA No.1183/PUN/2023 relating

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

condone the delay of 445\ndays in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and\nadmit the appeal for adjudication.\n\n4. Since most of the grounds raised in these two appeals are\ncommon, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of\nconsolidated order for the sake of convenience.\n\n5. We will first take

MA CHIMANRAOJI KADAM GR BIGAR SETI SAH PATH MAR SASWAD,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

unexplained cash credit-Rs.9,81,47,719 -Disallowance of Interest Rs.1,01,29,686/- -Deduction u/s 80P-Rs.20,905/- 2 Ma Chimanraoji Kadam Gr Bigar Seti Sah Path Mar Saswad 2. Learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant's appeal on account of delay of 67 days in filling appeal memo

GANGAGIRI MAHARAJ BETSARALA MAHILA NAGARI PATSANSTHA LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

unexplained money u/s 69A on the ground that the appellant credit society was not legally permitted to accept SBNs from its members during demonetization period without appreciating that the said addition was not justified in law and on facts. 2 2] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that assuming without admitting that the assessee credit society

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee M/s. Adhunik Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd.) is a company engaged in trading of drip material and onions. It filed its return of income on 31.01.2013 declaring

PRASHANT PRATAP AHIR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1954/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Prashant Pratap Ahir At – Bunglow No.8, Mahindra Society, 121, Nagar Road, Pune – 411006 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aefpa6461E बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 10, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Prashant Pratap Ahir Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 07/08/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Soared Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 21/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 9

delay in instituting the appeal, reiterated its contents and prayed for condonation. Pressing the ground number 2 it is submitted the impugned addition and confirmation thereof by the Ld. FAA was on account of mis- representation by the engaged representative, whereas the amount of cash deposit was out of on-money (cash) generated on the sale of capital asset

NISHAT HUSSEIANLI VAZIR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), PUNE

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.604/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nishat Husseianli Vazir, Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune. 7 M.G. Road, 36, Wonderland Camp, Pune- 411001. Pan : Adapv3432C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 2,06,83,929/- Instead Of Return Income Of Rs. 5,08,729/-. 2. The Appellant Contends That Unfortunately, The Appellant Failed To Check The Itba Portal & Learn About The Opportunities Of Hearing /Making Submission Before It Authorities & Neither Got Any Email Communication From The Office Of Learned Cit(A). Further, The Appellant Contends That Appellant Is Certainly Keen To Pursue The Matter On Merits & Facts.

cash credit. 6. The appellant craves leave to add / alter / clarify / explain / modify/ enhance / delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.” 3. The appellant has also filed modified ground of appeal, which reads as under :- “3. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining

RAIGAD DARSHAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 533/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vs Ito Ward 8(3), Raigad Darshan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Pune Maryadit, Krishna Vatika, Jyotiba Nagar, Surve No. 77/1/2/1, Kalewadi, Kalewadi B.O-411017 Pune Maharashtra Pan-Aacar7156B Appellant Respondent

unexplained cash credits. 2. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in rejecting Appellant's appeal on account of a delay of 333 days in filing an appeal before him. The appellant contends that 2 -Demise of former tax counsel, Mr. Shinde, a month before the conclusion assessment proceedings. -Appellant become aware of demand upon adjustment of refund

FAKRODDIN DAWAL PATEL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

In the result both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1475/Pun/2024&1476/Pun/2024 धििाारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16& 2016-17 Fakroddin Dawal Patel, 9, D, Income Tax Officer, Latur Market Yard, Latur, Maharashtra-413512 Vs Pan No. Aqapp3436F Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

unexplained income. The A.O. did not possess any information and he has presumed the income is unreported. Nowhere in the order has the A.O. proven that the due to the credits in the said account mentioned, the appellant has derived any gains. Thus, the order is bad in law and may please be quashed. 3. The section 69A states that

FAKRODDIN DAWAL PATEL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

In the result both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1475/Pun/2024&1476/Pun/2024 धििाारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16& 2016-17 Fakroddin Dawal Patel, 9, D, Income Tax Officer, Latur Market Yard, Latur, Maharashtra-413512 Vs Pan No. Aqapp3436F Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

unexplained income. The A.O. did not possess any information and he has presumed the income is unreported. Nowhere in the order has the A.O. proven that the due to the credits in the said account mentioned, the appellant has derived any gains. Thus, the order is bad in law and may please be quashed. 3. The section 69A states that