SUHAS JAGANNATH KANASE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowing loss of Rs. 1,26,043/- under head of House property undisclosed salary without providing reasonable/adequate opportunity to be heard is violation of principle of natural justice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act is concerned, he allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as under: “The appellant is of the view that ignoring the request for cross examination and failure to supply the materials/statements etc, relied upon by the AO during the entire assessment proceedings, is not permissible under

PRAFULLA SHANTILAL KOTHARI ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.922/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prafulla Shantilal Kothari, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Flat No.1, Akshay Plaza, Ramnagar, Wadgaonsheri, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aahhp4593E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora, Shri Saukhya Lakade & Miss Riya Oswal Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per R. K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Huf & Is Carrying On Business Of Online Trading In Lottery Tickets Under The Name & Style ‘J.K. Lottery’. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.51,25,350/-. The Case

natural justice. Further, alternatively, appellant submitted that disallowances made by AO on salary, vehicle expenses, travelling and advertisement were on the higher

MAHARSHI KARVE STREE SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS EMPLOYEES COOP SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs. ITO EASSSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

natural justice and procedural fairness, as established in judicial pronouncements.  Failure to Consider Previous Assessment: The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the assessment order for AY 2017- 18, where the assessee's income was accepted without any addition and there was no change in facts or claims. Ground 2: Non-Application of Mind on Merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. YANTRIK ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1283/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21

natural justice and also Rule 46A of the IT Rules.” 6. Ld. Departmental Representative took us through the detailed written submissions running into 32 pages filed on 29.07.2025 in which submissions have been made for each of the grounds and has strongly objected to the relief granted by ld.CIT(A) and also has stated that certain additional evidences were accepted

BARAMATI TALUKA SAHAKARI PHALUTPADAM SANGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-14(50, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2103 & 2104/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Baramati Taluka V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakariphalutpadan Sangh, S Ward-14(5), Pune. At Pipmaliatpimpali Post Pimpali Taluka Baramati District Pune – 413102. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatb5269Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 25.07.2025 & 07.08.2025 Respectively; Against The Order U/S.143(3) Dated 05.03.2021 & Penalty Order U/S.270A Of The Act, Dated 09.08.2021 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience

natural justice. Your appellant prays for granting opportunity of hearing before lower authorities. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, following grounds are also taken on merit, 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Learned Assessing officer erred in leaving the penalty of Rs.7,64,688/- by treating the disallowance

BARAMATI TALUKA SAHAKARI PHALUTPADAM SANGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-14(5), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2103 & 2104/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Baramati Taluka V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakariphalutpadan Sangh, S Ward-14(5), Pune. At Pipmaliatpimpali Post Pimpali Taluka Baramati District Pune – 413102. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatb5269Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 25.07.2025 & 07.08.2025 Respectively; Against The Order U/S.143(3) Dated 05.03.2021 & Penalty Order U/S.270A Of The Act, Dated 09.08.2021 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience

natural justice. Your appellant prays for granting opportunity of hearing before lower authorities. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, following grounds are also taken on merit, 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Learned Assessing officer erred in leaving the penalty of Rs.7,64,688/- by treating the disallowance

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

natural justice 3.2. Further, refer to para V (pg 9 & 10) of the Addl. CIT-A's order dated 24-01-2024. Instead of dealing with ground wise detailed written submission advanced before him, Ld. Addl. CIT-A, without any reason, clubbed all grounds, did not consider the voluminous evidences brought on record (refer

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 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)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

natural justice cannot be stretched that far to lead to such absurd results. The position may, however, be different where an assessee does a particular act not within specified time but after the expiry thereof and makes an application for condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the object sought to be achieved

BHASKAR DANVE PATIL ,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with the directions given above

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

disallowance made by the AO of 20% of sub-contract expenses appears to be on the higher side and in the interest of natural justice

TATA TOYO RADIATOR LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7, 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.152/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tata Toyo Radiator Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Taco House, V.G. Damle Path, Off Law College Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaact5566F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. D. Sancheti Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Ultra Vires, Illegal, Bad In Law & Contrary To The Provisions Of The Act. Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Thus Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Granting A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard, Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice.

natural justice. 2 3. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the learned CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits, basis the facts available on record and thereby appreciate that one of the ground of appeal, disputing the major addition made by the AO, before him was squarely covered by the orders of Tribunal in the Company

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), PUNE, 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.246/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramdas Pandharinath Kale V The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), S Ward-12(3), Pune. Wagjholi, Kalewasti, Kasanand Road, Haveli, Pune – 412207. Pan: Aaqhr7916A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 19.10.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Each Ground Is Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other.

natural justice and on merits of the case as well, before the lower authorities or else to decide the matter if the honourable bench permits. 7. The assessee hereby requests for allowing any other relief as available under the law. ITA No.246/PUN/2025 [A] 8 The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, and delete

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

natural justice and needs to be set aside. 6. The Assessee Society prays before your honour to afford and allow it an opportunity of being heard on merits of the case before the lower authorities. 7. The penalty levied by the AO on issue of disallowance

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

natural justice and needs to be set aside. 6. The Assessee Society prays before your honour to afford and allow it an opportunity of being heard on merits of the case before the lower authorities. 7. The penalty levied by the AO on issue of disallowance

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

natural justice and needs to be set aside. 6. The Assessee Society prays before your honour to afford and allow it an opportunity of being heard on merits of the case before the lower authorities. 7. The penalty levied by the AO on issue of disallowance

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

natural justice.\nI also find that the AO in this case has not conducted any\nindependent inquiry to establish the veracity of information\nreceived by him from the DDIT and he has mechanically issued\nthe notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court of\nBombay in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5\nv. Shodiman Investments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being