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)

disallowance of claim of agriculture income of Rs 5,52,310/- and addition u/s 68 of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash credit is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. It further be held that no addition is warranted in the case of the Appellant. The addition

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from one of the specific

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from one of the specific

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from one of the specific

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from one of the specific

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered-  Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings.  Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from one of the specific

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered – • Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings. • Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

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

FARHATULLAH KHAN HAMEED KHAN,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 23,00,000/- 69A 2 Disallowance under section 40A(3) 55,490/- 3 Disallowance from sundry expenses 34,923/- 4 Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

disallow the purchases. 14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed by both sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.11

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 69A.\nGround No. 6: Interest Disallowance Rs.1,54,43,569/-\n6.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

VIJAY GULABRAO SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; (ii) Rs. 50,00,000 as unexplained cash gift under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and (iii) Rs.3,20,700/- on account of disallowance

VIDYA VIKAS PRATISHTAN,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

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.902/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vidya Vikas Pratishtan, Vs. Assessment Unit, 72/2B, Pratap Nagar, Income Tax Department. Soregaon, Solapur- 413004. Pan : Aaatv8537F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

disallowance of Rs 1,73,56,240/- on account of receipts from incidental objects, without appreciating that such receipts comprised fees and contributions directly related to educational activities of the trust, and not commercial in nature and hence, the addition made under section 69A

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

section 69A of the I.T. Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act. Further the assessee claimed total Agricultural receipts of Rs. 81,52,475/- which includes cash deposits of Rs. 50,99,000/- and balance Agricultural receipts works out to Rs. 30,53,475/- which has not been justified. Hence, the amount of Rs. 30,53,475/- treated as income

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee