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

investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the excess

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

investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the excess

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

investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the excess

MOHAN SHRINIWAS BHISE,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD 3, SANGLI, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

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

disallowance of Rs.11,86,180/- (Rs.31,86,180/- - Rs.20,00,000/-) and Rs.20,99,740/- (Rs.23,99,740/- - Rs.3,00,000/-) on account of excess exemption claimed by the assessee for retirement gratuity and leave encashment respectively. A show cause notice was thereafter issued to the assessee requiring him to show cause as to why the assessment proceedings should

OLIVE TREE TRADING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

unexplained investment under section 69C of the IT Act and thereby erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs. 66,39,484/- 2 ITA No.899/PUN/2024

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 sheet, it is noted that during the year under consideration, unsecured loans raised have been claimed at Rs.2,47.60.610/- as against unsecured loans of Rs.2,18,16,751/- claimed in the immediately preceding year

PAVAN GOPAL CHOTIYA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance for HRA at Rs.66,516/- stands confirmed. 8. Next addition is regarding unexplained investment in shares at Rs.4,14,590/-. During

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

unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source not being known, such deemed income will not fall even under the head, 'Income from other sources. Therefore, the corresponding deductions, which are applicable to the incomes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. DHULE ZILHA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DHULE, DHULE

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

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

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.80,80,200/-, to the Nil income returned by the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.80,80,200/-. As regards the addition of Rs.29

VASANT POPATLAL PATEL,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, KUDAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2675 & 2674/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vasant Popatlal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Patel Hardware, Ward Kudal. Vaibhavwadi, Sindhudurg – 416810 Income Tax Officer, Maharashtra Sindhudurg Pan : Azdpp1903D Appellant Respondent

unexplained investment /income/money. He also disallowed Rs.3,118/- which was claimed by the assessee u/s.80TTA of the Act. Assessed income

VASANT POPATLAL PATEL,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SINDHUDURG

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2675 & 2674/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vasant Popatlal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Patel Hardware, Ward Kudal. Vaibhavwadi, Sindhudurg – 416810 Income Tax Officer, Maharashtra Sindhudurg Pan : Azdpp1903D Appellant Respondent

unexplained investment /income/money. He also disallowed Rs.3,118/- which was claimed by the assessee u/s.80TTA of the Act. Assessed income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. DHARAMVEER SAMBHAJI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, NARAYAN GAON

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1639/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

unexplained investments, difference in interest income and disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. However, in the appeal filed

VILAS ALIAS RAJU SHRAWAN CHAUDHARI,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5),, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

unexplained investment is also nearer to the declaration of additional income given by appellant in survey action at Rs.1,50,00,000/-. 5.17 In view of the above facts and discussion, the addition of Rs.3,30,19,093/- is confirmed to the extent of Rs.1,68,96,607/- and balance addition to the extent of Rs.1

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

unexplained expenditure in his statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, which has an evidentiary value until not proven otherwise along with supporting documentary evidences. 11. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance made of Rs.1,49,910/- out of agricultural income only

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

disallowances hereinabove (supra) which deserve to be upheld in entirety. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands. The Revenue has placed this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench’s order in M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd.’s case (supra) for the very twin assessment years 4 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

SAILAB MARKETING SERVICES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

disallowances hereinabove (supra) which deserve to be upheld in entirety. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands. The Revenue has placed this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench’s order in M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd.’s case (supra) for the very twin assessment years 4 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

disallowances hereinabove (supra) which deserve to be upheld in entirety. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands. The Revenue has placed this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench’s order in M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd.’s case (supra) for the very twin assessment years 4 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos

DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM R MOGHE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

disallowances hereinabove (supra) which deserve to be upheld in entirety. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands. The Revenue has placed this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench’s order in M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd.’s case (supra) for the very twin assessment years 4 ITA.Nos.72, 73 & 66/PUN./2021 And ITA.Nos