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

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

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

69C of the Act such unexplained expenditure available in the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has declared the additional income on the basis of impounded documents showing higher calculation of work in progress and there is no evidence on record that the assessee has incurred any such expenditure which

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

SUDHAKAR BAJIRAO SHISODE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2780/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Disallowance of deduction under section 80C of ₹1,50,000; (b) Addition of ₹12,27,400 treating the purchase of a motor car as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

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

69C in view of the scheme of those provisions. 7. It is, therefore, clear that, when the investment in or acquisition of gold, which was recovered from the assessee was not recorded in the books of account and the assessee offered no explanation about the nature and source of such investment or acquisition and the value of such gold

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 69C of the Act for unexplained Agricultural Expenses at Rs.4,36,820/-. 8. In the revisionary proceedings, assessee again furnished the details stating that ld. AO has called for all the relevant details. After examining the same, ld. AO was partly satisfied with the details as certain details relating sale bills were not available on record. He therefore made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. JHAVERI FLEXO INDIA PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

disallowance of expenses of Rs 4,00.000 - on account of unverifiable expenses without verifying the nature of expenses. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 74,48,000 - as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

SPAN OVERSEAS P LTD,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.409/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Span Overseas Private Limited, The Principal Office No.5, Amar Avinash Vs Commissioner Of Income Corporate City 11, Bund Garden Tax-3, Pune. Road, Pune – 411006. Pan: Aabcs 4214 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 Dated 30.03.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 13.11.2019 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Span Overseas Private Limited ('The Appellant') Objects To The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Dated March 30, 2022 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pune - 3 ('Pr. Cit) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Amongst Other Grounds: Span Overseas P. Ltd.,[A]

disallowed and added back. Then only, it will be allowed in the year of actual payment made. The ld.AR submitted before us that assessee had never collected the sale tax from customers in the year 1994-95, 1995-96 & 1996-97 and had never debited sales tax in the year 1994-95, 1995-96 & 1996-97. However, these are mere

MRS NEHA VITTHAL DIMBLE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

section 69C\nr. w. s.115BBE and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the\nsame.\n3. The learned AO has erred in making additions and disallowances

CHETAN TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

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

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

disallowing the same. It was submitted that the said payments were made out of withdrawals of the firm and / or its partners or by funds given by the partners from their sources. It was accordingly submitted that the provisions of section 69C

CHETAN TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

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

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

disallowing the same. It was submitted that the said payments were made out of withdrawals of the firm and / or its partners or by funds given by the partners from their sources. It was accordingly submitted that the provisions of section 69C

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

section 69C of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the assessee has wrongly claimed an additional benefit of deduction of Rs 68,32,775/- while calculating the capital gain arising as a result of the sale of the land. In view of the above discussions, this additional benefit claimed by the assessee is hereby disallowed

M/S. SHANKAR RAMCHANDRA EARTHMOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowing 10% of closing work in progress without giving due regard to the fact that the closing work in progress is not an item of expenditure for which deduction is claimed. It is pertinent to note that the above addition is made pursuant to section 69C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. BEEKAY ENTERPRISES,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the legal ground taken in the assessee’s cross objection which goes to the root of the matter is allowed and the ground on merits therefore, becomes academic in nature

disallowance to certain extent is against the principle of section 68 & 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4) The Ld. CIT(A)-7, Pune

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

disallowed as unexplained expenditure within the meaning of section 69C of the Income-tax Act. 1961. (b) On Perusal of balance