GUNAI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,UDGIR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

cash deposits made during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.80,18,423/-. The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.12.2019 by disallowing

V R AUTO SERVICES,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

cash deposited during demonetization period. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no case here for making the addition as unexplained u/s.68. In view of this discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A)." 8.2. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha

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

Disallowance of Rs 1 crore out of purchases expenses 1 Supporting documents uploaded on portal on 04.12.2019 ie Purchase register alongwith ledger extracts & invoice copies Ground No 3: Cash Deposits

DASHRATH KISHANRAO CHOUDHARY,GANGAKHED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed as unexplained money. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO due to the assessee’s non-compliance with the Government Notification (supra) prohibiting SBN acceptance post 03/12/2016 and lack of 4 ITA.No.2750/PUN./2024 evidence substantiating the sources of cash deposits

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT PURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SOLAPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4, PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mohol Nagari Sahakari The Principal Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit, Vs Commissioner Of Income Marketyard Mohol, Tal. Mohol, Tax, Pune. Dist. Solapur – 413213. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaam 1185 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S N Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena - Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune Dated 26.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Pr. Commissioner Has Erred Both On Facts As Well As Law In Initiating Proceeding U/S 263 & Passing Order Under U/S 263, Without Application Of Mind. Mohol Nagari Sahakri Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit [A]

disallowing Sec 80P claim on Bank Interest and adding deposits of high value receipt of cash. 5. Without prejudice to above

MR. ANIL JAGANNATH KEDAR,SOLAPUR vs. WARD 1(2), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.567/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Anil Jagannath Kedar, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post-Wasud, Sangola, S Ward-1(2), Solapur. Dist – Solapur – 413307. Maharashtra. Pan : Asvpk0584A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 24.01.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Appeal

cash deposits during the year. However, Assessing Officer has travelled outside the scope of limited scrutiny. The Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued Instruction No.05/2016 dated 14.07.2016 regarding Scope of Limited Scrutiny. Similarly, CBDT had issued a letter dated 20.11.2018 explaining Scope of Enquiry in Limited ITA No. 567/PUN/2024 [A] Scrutiny. The Instructions issued by CBDT are binding

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

cash deposits made by the Appellant of Rs.12,07,960 u/s 68 of the Act is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The addition so made be deleted. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect 2. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme

M/S SUNIL CHETNDAS KATARIYA, HUF,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, , NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sunil Chetandas Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Nashik. Katariya, 649, Sai Villa, Lam Road, Deolali Camp, Nashik- 422401. Pan : Aaths6634R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [‘Pcit’] Dated 12.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 In The Case Of The Assessee For A.Y.2011 - 12 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby

cash deposit was made in the reassessment proceedings in respect of which the revision is sought to be made. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be termed “erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted from the bank statement of Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kharadi Branch, Pune that the assessee has made cash deposit

SHRI SAMADHAN RAMBHAU PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,, MALEGAON

Appeal stands ALLOWED for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 327/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Samadhan Rambhau Patil, At Post Yesgaon Khurd, Malegaon, Nashik – 422 103 Pan: Ajbpp2595B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Malegaon . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

disallowance was not warranted on facts and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the source of the said cash deposits

SARASWATI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2 AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

cash withdrawals and time deposits and interest other than interest on securities and the alleged escapement of income, however, in the re-assessment proceedings concluded u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act ld. AO has only made disallowance

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTA MARAYADIT,NASHIK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1625/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Pathsanstha S. Income Tax Department, Maryadit, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Delay : 1.1 There is a delay of 157 days in filing

MRS. PURNIMA PATNI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.234 & 235/Jpr/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Mrs. Purnima Patni, The Ito, Ward-3(4), Jaipur. Plot No.604A, Akashganga Vs Society, Rahetani, Pimple . Soudagar, Pune – 411017. Pan: Adupp 9192 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: 1. These Assessee’S Twin Appeals For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arise Against The Cit(A)-1, Jaipur’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 09.11.2017, Passed In Case No.S:92/2013-14 & 189/2013-14 Involving Proceedings Under Section 144 & 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

disallowance / addition made course of the former does not ipso facto attract the latter penal provision. We keep in mind this fine ITA No’s.234 & 235/JPR/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 (A) Mrs.Purnima Patni distinction and note that the assessee has led her oral as well as documentary evidence that the cash deposits

MRS. PURNIMA PATNI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.234 & 235/Jpr/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Mrs. Purnima Patni, The Ito, Ward-3(4), Jaipur. Plot No.604A, Akashganga Vs Society, Rahetani, Pimple . Soudagar, Pune – 411017. Pan: Adupp 9192 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: 1. These Assessee’S Twin Appeals For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arise Against The Cit(A)-1, Jaipur’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 09.11.2017, Passed In Case No.S:92/2013-14 & 189/2013-14 Involving Proceedings Under Section 144 & 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

disallowance / addition made course of the former does not ipso facto attract the latter penal provision. We keep in mind this fine ITA No’s.234 & 235/JPR/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 (A) Mrs.Purnima Patni distinction and note that the assessee has led her oral as well as documentary evidence that the cash deposits

SACHIN JAGDISHPRASAD AGARWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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.1567/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Jagdishprasad Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), Pune. O.No.2, Metropole, Near Inox Multiplex, Bund Garden Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aappa6250R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By Ao To The Tune Of Rs.13,20,000 Made Under Section 69A On Account Of Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period In His Bank Account Out Of The Opening Cash Balance Available With Him Which Has Been Arbitrarily Alleged To Be Unexplained. The Appellant Hereby Prays That The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,20,000/- May Please Be Deleted.

deposited during the demonetization period in his bank account out of the opening cash balance available with him which has been arbitrarily alleged to be unexplained. The appellant hereby prays that the disallowance

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

deposited and subsequently cheques were issued is factually incorrect. The director of the company also attended before AO and confirmed the fact. It is also noted that both the companies, that is the appellant company as well as the share applicant are managed by the same group of persons. Honourable High Court of Gujarat has consistently held that

RAJYA RAKHIV POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 14(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.171/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance of the claim made u/s 80P of Rs. 30,51,273/-, especially in view of the fact that the case was reopened u/s 147 for the reason of cash deposit

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance in principle. 4. The fact also remains that we have prime facie notice assessee have executed his corresponding sale deed (registered documents) on 24.12.2010 whether as the Assessing Officer’s remand report stated the same have been acted upon on 30.04.2011 ( in the relevant previous year). We are therefore of the view that the instant clinching issue regarding