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

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

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

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

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

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

Disallowance on account alleged cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). even though, as was substantiated in the submission to the Ld. PCIT, there isneither any violation of S.40A (3) nor the excess income declared during surveyhas remained to be disclosed, which fact was duly examined by the AO duringthe assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The appellant therefore prays

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEEPAK BABURAO VISPUTE, KOPARGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. So far as the disallowance of expenses are concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) gave

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,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.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

69B so as to claim this cost as a deduction in the future year while selling off the said land. The additional expenditure of Rs 68,32,775/- has been incurred by the assessee over and above the cost of the land and it correctly falls under the purview of section 69C of the Act. 5. In view

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

69B in respect of such excess stock. Decisions where it was held that sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D are not applicable : 5.4. On the other hand, in the following decisions, it was held that if the sources of surrendered/ undisclosed income are explained, deemed income provisions under sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D are not applicable and consequently

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance of interest at Rs.11,60,000/-. We note that the assessee has given advance of Rs.1.45 crore to Prashasti Properties Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. However, interest @4% has been charged as against the prevailing market rate of 12%. We note that this issue has been examined by the ld. AO and he has found that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SYDLER REMEDIES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1274/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sydler Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. M-190, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad- 431002. Pan : Aaics3879E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Deleting The Addition Made As Per Provisions Of Section 698 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The 1.T. Act On Declaration Made Of Rs. 5,88,00,000/- On Account Of Excess Stock Found During Survey For Which Assessee Failed To Offer Any Satisfactory Explanation During The Survey As Well As Assessment Proceedings.

69B and Rs.13,87,650/- on account of disallowance u/s 37 of the Act but tax to be calculated as per provisions of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

69B\nX\n4\nCopy of sale agreement of\nTransferable Development Rights\n(\"TDR\") admeasuring 2,630 sq. mtr.\nto Mr. Yashwant Bapurao Sawant\ndated 18.10.2016\n70-89\nX\n5\nTranslated sale agreement of\nTransferable Development Rights\n(\"TDR\") admeasuring 2,630 sq. mtr.\nto Mr. Yashwant Bapurao Sawant\ndated 18.10.2016\n90-97\n6\nCopy of sale agreement of\nTransferable Development

SHIV SHRADDHA DEVELOPER,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -3 KALYAN , KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed the purchases made for the failure on the part of the appellant firm to produce the parties who were stated to have supplied the material to the appellant firm. According to the AO, failure on the part of the appellant firm to produce the parties who were stated to have supplied the material to the appellant amounted to furnishing