SHRI SHAASHI RAKESH PATODIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

demonetization period as unaccounted cash. Accordingly, above said amount of Rs.7,79,500/- was disallowed, added u/s. 69A of the Act and charged

DR PAMOD EKNATHRAO JADHAV,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2381/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dr. Pramod Eknathrao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(6), Jadhav, Aurangabad. Row House No.1, Samarth Heritage, Opp. Marathwada Sanskrity Mandal Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Adfpj4882K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratikh Jha Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Gurugram [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied

demonetization period against supply of medicines and consultation fees. 4. Business Promotion Expenses: 3 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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)

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)

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

SHRIJEET FINANCE P LTD,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

demonetization. Assessment in this case has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by making an addition of (i) Rs. 6,66,151/- by disallowing

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.

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

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

demonetized notes collected by the assessee from its members would not be hit by the provisions of section 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.Ο. to delete this disallowance

DILIP BALASAHEB BHOSALE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1359/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dilip Balasaheb Bhosale, V The Income Tax Officer, Shevarvadi Lanja, S Ratnagiri. Ratnagiri – 416701. Pan: Bjrpb7583G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Dilip Bari – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 01.05.2024 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Rs.22,19,140/- Representing The Total Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period, Rejecting The Submissions Made By The Appellant.”

demonetization period, rejecting the submissions made by the appellant.” ITA No.1359/PUN/2024 [A] Submission of ld.AR: 2. Ld.Authorised Representative for the Assessee filed an elaborate paper book which contains synopsis and case laws relied. Ld.AR explained that Assessee has earned interest income from Shri Panchganga Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited. Ld.AR further explained that the AO disallowed

SHANKAR SAYBU RAKHEWAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -2, NANDED

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance of Rs.68,270/- incurred as business expenditure. 4. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before me. Assessee is an individual and no return of income has been filed for A.Y. 2017-18 as observed by ld. Assessing Officer (AO). Ld. AO based on the information about deposit of cash during the demonetization

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)

disallowing the exemption of the agricultural income as claimed in ITR amounting to Rs. 98,75,267/- is concerned the appellant has submitted some documents relating to ownership of agricultural land. The AO has mentioned in the rectification order that However, as per the cash book and computation of income and Capital account in the balance sheet of the current

G N ADGAONKAR JWELES,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowing 50% of the total cash purchases of Rs.44,10,154/- made from unregistered dealers. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Jewellery and Goldsmith. Income assessed in the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act at Rs.23,52,967/- as against the returned income

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

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 : 2. There was a delay of 151 days in filing

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMAPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

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 : 2. There was a delay of 151 days in filing

KRISHNA NRSING HOME,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 5, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.29,47,283/ claimed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, for the reasons stated in the impugned order otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in alleging that the cash in hand shown by the appellant

K D CHOUDHARI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2232/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 K.D. Choudhary, Office No. Acit Circle-5, Pune 36, 37, 38, Krushi Udog Bhavan, Gultekdi, Shri Vs. Chhatrapati Shivaji Market Yard, Pune-411037 Maharashtra Pan-Aanfk0084B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent

demonetization period. The assessee filed details in the assessment proceedings but Ld. AO was not satisfied with some of the submissions and completed the assessment of making various additions of Rs. 81,22,000/- and assessed the income at Rs. 1,28,22,440/- 6. The additions made by the AO were challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed

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]

demonetization period which Assessing Officer himself has added. Appellant Prays for cancellation of Order as same is not erroneous so far as prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue. 3. The proceedings and Order u/s 263 passed by the Pr.CIT is without Jurisdiction and Bad in Law. Appellant prays to cancel the same, as Pr.CIT prohibited personal hearing stating

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

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated for underreporting of income.” 4. Similarly, from the audit report filed by the assessee in form 3CB the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has taken several unsecured loans during the year. He issued notices

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