JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.97,03,015/-. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, it was argued that the assessee got allotted 20000 shares of Rs.10 each of Anax Com Trade limited in private placement on 15.09.2012. The same were registered in the name

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. An addition of Rs.4,55,00,000/- is therefore made to the income of the assessee. [Addition: Rs. 4,55,00,000/-] 6. Before the CIT(A) the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment on the ground that the reasons for reopening

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALNA CIRCLE,, JALNA vs. SANJAY DEVENDRAPARSAD RAI,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.801/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sanjay Devendraprasad Rai, Income Tax, Jalna Circle, Vs Prop. Shivshakti Services, 343, Jalna. Manik Nagar, Lakkadkot, Jalna – 431 203. Pan: Akqpr 3680 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.17/Pun/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.801/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Devendraprasad Rai, The Asst. Commissioner Of Prop. Shivshakti Services, 343, Vs Income Tax, Jalna Circle, Manik Nagar, Lakkadkot, Jalna. Jalna – 431 203. Pan: Akqpr 3680 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Dr.Prayag Jha & Shri Prateek Jha – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Appeal Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-1,[Ld.Cit(A)], Pune Dated 05.02.2018 For

unexplained cash of ICICI bank account no. 371 Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 57,45,500/- in HDFC Bank a/c No. 273 when cash book produced in appellate proceedings is not reliable and not verified by the AO/CIT(A) based on the above facts and in the circumstances of the case. vi) The appellant craves the permission

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

unexplained credits and deserves to be added u/s.68 of the Act. Income assessed at Rs.8,40,49,890/-. 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) challenging the validity of the reopening proceedings along with the addition made u/s.68 of the Act. However, assessee failed to succeed. Finding of ld.CIT(A) reads as under : “Now I proceed to decide

MAHAVIR FLEET OPERATORS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemahavir Fleet Operators Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Gat No. 1349, Khandvenagar, Of Income Tax, Wagholi, Pune – 412307 Circle – 11(2), Pune Vs. Pan : Aafcm9834N

unexplained share capital. The appellant had not submitted financial statements as per the Companies Act. Discrepancies has been noted in tax audit report and financial statements submitted by the appellant. The audit report submitted does not reflect true state of affairs. Balances for two year are not shown. As per the balance sheet Rs. 45 Lacs has been raised

MAHENDRA PRAKASH PAWAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

cash utilised for credit card payments and finally concluded the assessment proceedings making addition for unexplained investment u/s.69C of the Act at Rs.21,69,933/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions filed before the lower authorities

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation is of Rs.31,61,21,110/-. It was submitted that the net profit earned on derivative transactions referred to in the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been properly accounted for in the Profit and Loss Account and there is no attempt to avoid income tax. It was accordingly requested to drop the proceedings initiated

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation is of Rs.31,61,21,110/-. It was submitted that the net profit earned on derivative transactions referred to in the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been properly accounted for in the Profit and Loss Account and there is no attempt to avoid income tax. It was accordingly requested to drop the proceedings initiated

TRICOM FRUIT PRODUCTS LIMITED,SATARA vs. ACIT, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs.8,04,78,448/- b) Disallowance of proportionate interest Rs.38,78,763/- c) Unsecured loan written off Rs.23,36,19,041/- d) Non deduction of tax on certain payments – disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) Rs.8,45,301/- e) Inadmissible depreciation

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

unexplained cash credits without appreciating that the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loans was duly established by the appellant by furnishing various documentary evidences and therefore, the above addition made for A.Y.2011-12 was sustainable in law and on facts of the case. 4] The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SUBHASH LALASAHEB DESHMUKH,, OSMANABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

depreciation on JCB Machine amounting to Rs.1,95,075/-. The AO held that there was no use of JCB machine in the assessee’s business and hence made disallowance, which came to be deleted in the first appeal. 18. After considering the rival submissions on record, it is evident that the reason for the AO to make the disallowance

MANGESH KRISHNATH EKBOTE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on fixed assets to the extent of Rs.45,909/-. The impugned order is overturned to this extent. 5. The only other issue which survives in this appeal is against treating profit on sale and purchase of shares amounting to Rs.34,62,194/- as ‘Business income’. The AO observed that the assessee had shown short term capital gain of Rs.34

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)

depreciation of Rs.2,43,596/-, municipal taxes of Rs.59,661/-, vehicle expenses of Rs.94,398/- and vehicle insurance of Rs.64,687/- was produced before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but the same was neither considered 7 nor discussed in the first appellate order and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was simply sustained. Under these circumstances, it was prayed

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

credit (Share application money) - Assessment ycar 2000-10 - During relevant year, assessee company had increased its share capital by issuing 7.93 lakh shares of Rs.10 each at a premium of Rs.390 - assessee originally filed a return showing a gross total income of Rs.24, 658 however, thereafter wrote to AO that due to inadvertence it had not disclosed receipt

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

Depreciation 41,07,184/- Total Rs. 36,17,58,045/- 1.3 In the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished details along with supportings, explanations & clarifications as sought by the AO on 17.01.2018, 25.10.2019, 20.11.2019 & 04.12.2019. (copies enclosed as mentioned in Para (1) 2 above). 1.4 The AO in paras 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Asst order alleges that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

credit balance. 3 9. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,700/- made on account of interest received on advances given in cash on Hundi to Vikas Industries, even when interest calculation is mentioned in seized documents which clearly demonstrate that

ANANDA GORAKHANATH PAWAR,SATARA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 3, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. At Post Ambawade, Khatav, Satara- 415506. Pan : Blhpp6081R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri R. C. Doshi : Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 26 Days On Grounds Of Period Of Limitation, Notwithstanding The Fact That Appellant Has Submitted The Application & Explained The Reasons For Delay.

depreciation amounting to INR 12,908 without any basis • Disallowed genuine deductions claimed under chapter VIA amounting to INR 25,200 • Creditors amounting to INR 3,10,110 added to income despite making addition w.r.t. purchase of milk • Citing credits in current accounts amounting to INR 11,54,361 as unexplained income. Contentions of the Appellant The learned

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

depreciation in case of our company is 1.08 crore wheras in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 0.42 Crore. (h) Net profit before tax in case of our company is 27.53 Crore whereas in the case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 2.02 Crore in terms of percentage it works out to 8.32% whereas

SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

depreciation in case of our company is 1.08 crore wheras in case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 0.42 Crore. (h) Net profit before tax in case of our company is 27.53 Crore whereas in the case of Sundaram Multi Pap. Ltd. it is 2.02 Crore in terms of percentage it works out to 8.32% whereas