M/S. NATIONAL TEMPO HOUSE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1215/Pun/2016 Block Period : 1987-88 To 1997-98

112 (Bom). He then, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in CIT Vs. Dr. Giriraj Agarwal Giri (2012) 346 ITR 152 (Raj), which was case of block assessment, wherein the addition was made on the basis of estimation and the Hon’ble High Court held that in such cases, no penalty

SUSHILA SUDHAKAR PINGALE,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.869/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sushila Sudhakar Pingale, V The Income Tax Officer, Pezari, Poynad Alibag, S Ward-3, Panvel. Raigad – 402109. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) – Virtual Hearing. Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025

section of 112 of the IT Act, 1961. The addition being unjustified is required to be deleted. 3. The Hon CIT(A) erred in denying the appellant, exemption u/s 54 of the IT Act, 1961 to the extent of Rs.14,31,056/- on account of investment in new house property

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

112 Taxman 96 (Bombay) note that Hon’ble Court held that Assessing Officer cannot estimate undisclosed 39 ITA.No.987/PUN./2025 (M/s. Shree Sai Properties) income under Chapter XIVB on arbitrary basis. Para 8 of the order of Hon’ble Court reads as under : “8. In conclusion, we would also like to mention that Chapter XIV-B lays down a special

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

property and the second party shall invest the entire requisite wherewithal, capital and efforts to implement the building project to complete the same together with all infrastructural development at their own cost and responsibility and on its own account. The parties have determined to share the gross sale proceeds received from the sale of the units and from all saleable

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE,(HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

house property in support of claim u/s. 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) having found the said information not before the AO, sought remand report. The AO furnished remand report. According to the AO relating to this issue u/s. 54B of the Act held that the assessee purchased agricultural land to an extent of Rs.72,21,240/- on individual

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

properties. The addition is, therefore, deleted. Thus, the\nOriginal Grounds No. 1 to 3 raised by the appellant are allowed.”\n29. Now after perusal of the above finding of the 1d.CIT(A), we\nwould first like to go through the provisions of section 69D of\nthe Act which reads as under :\n\"Amount borrowed or repaid on hundi.\n69D. Where

NAGNATH HANMANTAPPA JALKOTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

property only in the year 2001 and therefore, the question of assessee incurring this expenditure prior to 2001 did not arise. There is no paper found during the search indicating that the assessee has incurred the expenditure from 1997 to 2001 and on the other hand, Shri Andure has owned up the paper and has also clarified that the paper

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7