SADHANA ASHOK BHANDARI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(1), PUNE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1615/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sadhana Ashok Bhandari, V The Income Tax Officer, Queenies Duplex, Vidyasagar S Ward-5(1), Pune. Colonym, Salisbury Park, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Agmpb0289Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rishabh Patni – Ca/Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade - Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017- 18 Dated 14.06.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act, It Be Held That The Ld.Ao Framed The Assessment Order Without Issuing Show Cause Notice To The Appellant Is Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & Not In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law. The Assessment So Framed Shall Be Treated As Null & Void. Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

deposits of Rs.7,27,000/- made during the Demonetization Period. Assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer(AO) that the cash was out of her accumulated cash balances. Assessee submitted cash book and bank statement for verification. Assessee submitted that she has income from house property

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

House, Plot No 3, 4 and 5, Sr. Vs. No.34A/6, Behind Shakti Sports, Nagar Road, Wadgaonsheri, Pune – 411014 PAN: AACAV1580B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR Date of hearing : 26-03-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-04-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal

ROHIDAS BHIKU JAMBHULKAR,HINJAWADI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CIT (A), PUNE-3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2530/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rohidas Bhiku Jambhulkar, V The Commissioner Of At Hinjawadi, Near Ganesh S Income Tax (Appeals) Mandir, Tal.Mulshi, Cit(A), Pune – 3. Dist-Pune – 411057. Pan: Ahypj9277D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri J.G.Bhumkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sanjay Dhivare –Addl.Cit(Dr) Through Virtual Hearing Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2012-13 Dated 28.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of

house property of Rs.1,77,800/- was also in cash. These cash amounts was deposited in cash. Also, time deposit

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)

house property, short term capital gain, income from other sources and agricultural 5 income. The Assessing Officer(AO) in the assessment order observed that assessee had deposited cash

TANAJI PARILAL GAWADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

house property be allowed. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 5) Without prejudice to the above legal Grounds of Appeal learned assessing officer has erred in appreciating the fact that the cash deposits

HOTEL SURYA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WAD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Cash deposits during the demonetization period, (ii) Low receipt from house property in ITR in compared to rental receipts stated

HOTEL SURYA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Cash deposits during the demonetization period, (ii) Low receipt from house property in ITR in compared to rental receipts stated

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL DIST. RAIGAD vs. SHAILESHKUMAR DINESHBHAI PATEL, TAL. MHASALA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

property. He was only a representative capacity. Addition was deleted. The appellant further relied on the case of ITO vs. Vinod Chadha (2016) (73 taxmann.com 118) wherein hon'ble Delhi-tribunal concluded that cash deposited in assessee's saving 'bank account was sales of partnership firm in which assessee was partner and same was duly explained with help of sales

PRATIBHA JAYADATTA KSHIRSAGAR,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pratibha Jayadatta Kshirsagar Vs. Acit, Jalna Kshirsagar Banglow, Nagar Road Circle Opp. Police Head Quarter, Beed – 431122, Maharashtra Pan: Ajlpk8038L Appellant Respondent

cash deposit made during the demonetization period. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee derived income from house property

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

house property was found belonging to this appellant’s deceased grandfather Lt. Tukaram Govind Pathare. We therefore quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Prakash V/s. ITO 2009 312 ITR 40 (Bom.) to affirmed the impugned disallowance in principle. 4. The fact also remains that we have prime facie notice assessee have executed his corresponding sale deed (registered

YASHWANT RANGNATH KULKARNI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

house property and from other sources. The assessment of appellant for A.Y. 2010-11 was taken up for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made cash deposits

MR. MANOJ N. PERE,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2676/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Manoj Nandikishor Ito, Ward-1(1), Pere, Aurangabad A3, 01St Floor, Manohar Vs. Vastu, Opp. Hi Tech Computers, Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad-431005 Maharashtra Pan-Amupp7701M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Cas Ravindra S. Darekar & Prasad S. Bhandari (Through Virtual) Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 07-08-2025 Date Of 13-08-2025 Pronouncement:

cash deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- in bank is from explained sources. 3) On the facts and in law the A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,60,650/- on account of interest income/income from house property

SHERGIL HARJIT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shergil Harjit, 6, Penton Road, Opp. Moti Buag, Officer’S Enclave, Ahmednagar Camp, Ahmednagar- 414002. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Evhps1971N बनाम / V/S. Pr. Cit-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Subhakant Sahu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Pune Dated 17.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record :- “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit – Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 As The Original Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Was Passed After Full Satisfaction Of The Ld. Assessing Officer. Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit, Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 Ex- Parte Inspite Of Duly Filed Submissions By The Assessee Before Time. Thus, The Order Passed Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee May Please Be Treated As Bad In Law & Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

cash deposits of more than Rs.10,00,000/- in my S.B. Account with Bank. I give herewith back ground of my family and financial status including my activities of earning income for kind perusal and consideration as under:- I am a house wife and have done some business during the previous year relevant to assessment years 2015-16 for which

ASHOK MOTILAL KATARIYA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

House, Ashoka Marg, Wadala, Nashik – 422011 PAN : ABDPK1068N .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Nashik ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Smt. Nirupama Kotru सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 27-02-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 23-05-2018 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : This appeal

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

deposited cash of Rs. 2.33Crores in its bank account in Janta Sahakari Bank and subsequently transferred to the various beneficiaries including the appellant. Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the appellant's income had escaped assessment. Based on this information the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and accordingly he issued notice

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

house property and other sources. The return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 24.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.8,92,510/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of cash deposits

PRASANNA KANTILAL MEHTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

cash of Rs.8,50,000/- found deposited in the locker subsequent to the investment in the said property, cannot be given credit for investment made In the property. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that income accrual of Rs.13,06,380/- relating to this year was also available for investment in the said property cannot be accepted and the Assessing

PRASANNA KANTILAL MEHTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

cash of Rs.8,50,000/- found deposited in the locker subsequent to the investment in the said property, cannot be given credit for investment made In the property. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that income accrual of Rs.13,06,380/- relating to this year was also available for investment in the said property cannot be accepted and the Assessing