M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. 3.8 In respect of ground No. 5 regarding disallowance of interest

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in toto. 3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,11,12,387/- as deemed dividend u/s 2 (22)(e) of the Act. 3.1 While doing

KHANDESH BUILDERS LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.268/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Khandesh Builders Ltd., 7, Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon – 425 001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan: Aaack 8222 H बनाम / V/S. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Jalgaon.

22)(e) on account of amount received by appellant company from its subsidiary company for the purpose of business of holding appellant company & appellant company is having a running account with its subsidiary company viz. J.M. Cotton Ginning & Pressing Co. 2 Khandesh Builders Ltd., (A) Pvt. Ltd. & the credit amounts are utilized by the appellant company for its business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. SMT. CHHAYA VALMIK NIKHADE,LATE SHRI VALMIK R. NIKHADE, , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. 8 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,26,000/- on account of deemed income from flats at Pune and Mumbai used for business purpose. 9 Your appellant craves, leave to add, alter, delete above or any other

LATE SHRI WALMIK RAGHUNATH NIKHADE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. 8 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,26,000/- on account of deemed income from flats at Pune and Mumbai used for business purpose. 9 Your appellant craves, leave to add, alter, delete above or any other

SANJAY DIGAMBAR MALVE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

22)( e) in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 7. The assessee prays that the above claims are purely legal in nature and all the relevant facts regarding the same are already on record and hence, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders

R&DE (ENGRS) EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

22,40,864 in fixed deposits, the assessee received interest of Rs.36,35,296 to which the AO has not allowed deduction u/s. 8OP(2)(a)(i) or 8OP(2)(d) of the Act. whereas the assessee has claimed deduction of amount u 8OP(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee submits that it is operational income because

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 2(22)(e) limits the amount of deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of the lender company (i.e. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. Since the accumulated profits in audit report of M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. was Rs.49,59,14,779/- accordingly deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company M/s M. B. Patil Construction

M/S. M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 2(22)(e) limits the amount of deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of the lender company (i.e. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. Since the accumulated profits in audit report of M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. was Rs.49,59,14,779/- accordingly deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company M/s M. B. Patil Construction

SANJAY DIGAMBAR MALVE.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2755/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Digambar Malve, The Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Plot No.2, Suvarnamudra Vs Bungalow, Mate Nursery Road, Sawarkar Nagar, Opp. Vishwas Bank, Nashik. Pan: Aftpm 5169 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Sanket Milind Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2022 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(Appeals)-1, Nashik Dated 09.09.2016For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Advances Of Rs.13,61,710/- Received By The Assessee From The Company, M/S. Kamal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Should Be Treated As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) In The Hands Of The Assessee. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Was Holding A Running Account With The Above Company & For A Major Part Of The Year, The Assessee Had Advanced Amounts To The Company & Hence, The Advances Received By The Assessee For A Short Period During The Year Were In Consideration Of The Advances Given By The Assessee To Company During The Rest Of The Year & Hence, The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Were Not Applicable To The Instant Case. 3. Without Prejudice To The Above Ground, The Assessee Submits That If At All Any Addition Is To Be Made U/S 2(22)(E), Then The Accumulated Profits Of The Company As On 01.04.2011 Should Be Considered For

section 2(22)(e) of the Act, after giving opportunity to the assessee. There is disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, in respect

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN GOVIND APTE, PUNE

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of the IT. Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon‟ble CTI (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- made on account of deemed dividend u/s Section 2(22)(e

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MUKUND JAISHANKAR DHARIYA,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.330/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the Ld.CIT(A)-3, Pune has erred in confirming the same to the extent of Rs.24,50,000/-. 2. The Ld.DCIT, Circle-3, Pune, has erred in disallowing

MUKUND DHARIYA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.330/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the Ld.CIT(A)-3, Pune has erred in confirming the same to the extent of Rs.24,50,000/-. 2. The Ld.DCIT, Circle-3, Pune, has erred in disallowing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. JITENDRA K. GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application to the facts of the case, there is no necessity to deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the assessee. Thus, grounds by the Revenue fails and are dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 135/PUN/2018 is dismissed. 18. Now, we shall take

M/S. SUBU CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application to the facts of the case, there is no necessity to deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the assessee. Thus, grounds by the Revenue fails and are dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 135/PUN/2018 is dismissed. 18. Now, we shall take

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M SUBU CHEM PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application to the facts of the case, there is no necessity to deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the assessee. Thus, grounds by the Revenue fails and are dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 135/PUN/2018 is dismissed. 18. Now, we shall take

JITENDRA KAPILDEO GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application to the facts of the case, there is no necessity to deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the assessee. Thus, grounds by the Revenue fails and are dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 135/PUN/2018 is dismissed. 18. Now, we shall take

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed the\ndeduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act\namounting to Rs.3,04,88,392/- treating the same as other income'.\nAccordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment on 28.09.2021 u/s\n143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.3,04,88,392/- as\nincome from other sources