ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

cash deposits in the firm of SBNs during the period of 08-11-2016 to 31-12-2016 is hereby treated as made from undisclosed sources and added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and taxed accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are hereby initiated since the income

TANAJI PARILAL GAWADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

cash deposits. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has shown Rs.62,29,700/- as sundry creditors under the head “ Current liabilities” in the balance sheet. He therefore, asked the assessee vide notice dated 10.11.2015 to furnish full details of the parties along with balance confirmation outstanding as on 31.03.2013 incorporating the details such as name, address

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

deposits as sales made by the assessee ignoring the vital fact that the assessee himself had disclosed meager sale of Rs.14,72,581 in his Profit &% Loss account as a part and parcel of return of income filed by him. All these facts, as a whole, clearly divulge that Assessing Officer did not carry out adequate and proper enquiries

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

cash deposit of Rs.61,19,654/- in the bank account of the assessee for which the case of the assessee was reopened under the provisions of section 147 of the Act, was satisfactorily explained. 8. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of S V Jadhav vs. ITO reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned thereafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

cash deposits at Sr. No. 1, unexplained investment in immovable property at Sr. No. 2, unexplained investment in property (depreciable

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

cash deposits at Sr. No. 1, unexplained investment in immovable property at Sr. No. 2, unexplained investment in property (depreciable

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

cash deposits at Sr. No. 1, unexplained investment in immovable property at Sr. No. 2, unexplained investment in property (depreciable

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

cash deposits at Sr. No. 1, unexplained investment in immovable property at Sr. No. 2, unexplained investment in property (depreciable

LALIT SAKALCHAND GANDHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE ,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

cash deposits at Sr. No. 1, unexplained investment in immovable property at Sr. No. 2, unexplained investment in property (depreciable

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

cash deposits in the said Society during the relevant AY 2015-16. However, the said deposits are not disclosed by the assessee in his return of income and therefore the source of such deposits remained unexplained and undisclosed. The case of the assessee was thus reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

cash deposits in the said Society during the relevant AY 2015-16. However, the said deposits are not disclosed by the assessee in his return of income and therefore the source of such deposits remained unexplained and undisclosed. The case of the assessee was thus reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice

BHUSAWAL CABLE NETWORK PVT LTD,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (1), JALGAON, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

deposits so as to get out of the rigor of the provisions of the Act and therefore, the learned lower authorities have rightly treated the same as unexplained cash. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing stand. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is a company engaged in providing

MAGARAJ MISHRIMAL RATHI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

deposited in bank. It was further submitted that on 04.04.2016 agricultural land was sold for Rs.5,00,000/- by the assessee. Therefore sufficient cash was available in the cash book of the assessee. Copy of sale deed of agricultural land was furnished before the Assessing Officer & also before LD CIT(A)NFAC. Accordingly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC should have

AMOL CHIMANRAO PATIL,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-2(3), JALGAON, JALGAON

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

deposited into the bank account was part of the petroleum products sold in cash during the financial year 2016- 17. 2 ITA No.325/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 The appellant 'prays before Your Honour to kindly direct the Ld AO to delete the addition of Rs.80,01,000/- made in the income of the appellant u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE

TANAJI PARILAL GAWADE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 528/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Tanaji Parilal Gawade At Post. Gawadewadi Wadebolhai Wagholi, Dist. Pune-412 207 Pan : Ajipg9156G .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

cash deposits, unexplained sundry creditors, interest paid to NBFC, depreciation on JCB/Purifier, printing and stationary, entertainment expenses and income from

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation on UPS. Finally, paragraph 7 deals with computation on the basis of the opinion in paragraphs 4.5 and 6. Thus, on the issue of deduction under section 100 of the IT Act, there is absolutely no consideration and yet, the AO has allowed such deduction. This is, according to us, is a case of ho consideration' as opposed

M/S. ORGANICA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK -1, NASHIK

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

depreciation deduction, which in turn, was converted to a complete one only for the foregoing three heads. We make it clear that this is not the Revenue’s case that the learned PCIT has found any fault with the Assessing Officer’s action in not converting the foregoing limited scrutiny to a complete one so far as these latter twin

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

cash deposits of Rs.38,27,878/- in his bank account with M/s. Vijay Share Cooperative Bank. Meaning thereby that they have not made any addition qua the foregoing sole reason recorded in the reopening reasons (supra). Faced with this situation, I quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways