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

deposited in the bank account on 18.11.2016 is on the basis of availability of cash in the Cash Book. Further, it is also his submission that when all the necessary evidences were produced before the Assessing Officer, he was not justified in disregarding the agricultural income and making the addition of Rs.30,53,475/- apart from the addition of Rs.50

SANGITA BALAJI WATTAMWAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

cash deposits, after due scrutiny of the evidences furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer added the entire agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs disallowing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. GUNAI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR

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

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

HANUMANT GANPAT MANE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

cash deposits in the bank are part of the gross receipts declared by the assessee. 4.2 The Assessing Officer has erred in assuming that out of the total receipts 92% is the expenditure. This assumption by the Assessing Officer is wrong. The income of 8% declared by the assessee under the provisions of section 44AD is deemed income

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

SATISH DHANESHAN KOLLARA,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

deposits ignoring the fact of the case or without substantiating such addition. Further, cash book of the assessee was also provided to the Assessing officer as well as to the First Appellate Authority for their reference. Therefore the hypothetical addition to sales Rs.1361000/- needs to be set aside. 2. The Appellate Authority erred by adding Rs.20,72,543/- as long

SARIKA CHANDRAKANT JAIN,,NANDURBAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

cash deposits amounting to Rs.12,56,000/-. After hearing the assessee and his arguments, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance

RAJESH HANUMANT PAWAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

deposits from the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire amount of Rs.17,35,787/- as unexplained cash. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee claimed expenditure in P & L account amounting to Rs.19,39,740/- against the gross receipt of Rs.23,46,110/-. For want of details, the Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S. DEOYANI MOVIES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

deposits in the bank was duly recorded in the cash book and nowhere the AO pointed out any sort of negative cash balance in the cash book. We fail to apprehend any reason for the disallowance

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