ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJAY NEMICHAND LOHADE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 order dated 28-11- 2016, we note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under : “5. Ground nos. 1 to 5: - As all these grounds relate to the common issue of disallowance of deduction u/s. 54F, therefore the same are disposed of together as under. 5.1 During the appellate proceedings

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAVAN,GADKARI CHOWK,AGRA ROAD,NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

property under section 24 of the Act. Assessee was well aware of the fact that assessee has not taken any housing loan and has not paid any housing loan interest to claim deduction. Thus, knowing well all the facts, assessee consciously filed Revised Return to claim the excess refund. Though assessee may have been advised by the Tax Practitioner

RAJU BHAUSAHEB ANAP,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.466/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raju Bhausaheb Anap, The Income Tax Officer, 01 Rajshree Samartha Sankul, V Nashik. Near Kalawati Mata Mandir, S Kalanagar, Indiara Nagar, Nashik – 422009. Pan: Anrpa 7092 E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 12.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A]

133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of Kishore Patial who e-filed ITR’s of various persons wherein bogus deduction under Chapter VIA 2 Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A] was claimed and the assessee was one among such cases. Kishor Patil, who files IT returns of the salaried employees of various companies and PSUs. That survey collectively revealed

RAJU BHAUSAHEB ANAP,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.467/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Raju Bhausaheb Anap, The Income Tax Officer, 01 Rajshree Samartha Sankul, V Nashik. Near Kalawati Mata Mandi, S Kalanagar, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009. Pan: Anrpa 7092 E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 11.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A]

133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of Kishore Patial who e-filed ITR’s of various persons wherein bogus deduction under Chapter VIA was claimed and the assessee was one among such cases. Kishor Patil, who files IT returns of the salaried employees of various companies and PSUs. That survey collectively revealed calming of bogus deductions under

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

133A was carried out on M/s.P.H. Infrastructure (a group concern of the respondent). 1.3 Originally, assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 16.12.2016, accepting the returned income. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 and completed by framing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 on 29.12.2017, making addition of Rs.8

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.361 & 362/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 19.01.2022 & 18.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017- 18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,57,400/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish

133A in the case of Mr.Kishore Patil, a Tax Practitioner. During the survey, it was observed that the Tax Practitioner, Mr.Kishore Patil had filed Returns claiming bogus deductions. In this context, notice under section 148 dated 26.02.2020 was issued in the case of assessee. In response to the notice under section 148 assessee filed electronically Return dated 06.03.2020 declaring total

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.361 & 362/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 19.01.2022 & 18.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017- 18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,57,400/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish

133A in the case of Mr.Kishore Patil, a Tax Practitioner. During the survey, it was observed that the Tax Practitioner, Mr.Kishore Patil had filed Returns claiming bogus deductions. In this context, notice under section 148 dated 26.02.2020 was issued in the case of assessee. In response to the notice under section 148 assessee filed electronically Return dated 06.03.2020 declaring total

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- 8 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true;” 3.9. A plain reading of this section makes

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- 8 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true;” 3.9. A plain reading of this section makes

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- 8 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true;” 3.9. A plain reading of this section makes

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- 8 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true;” 3.9. A plain reading of this section makes

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- 8 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true;” 3.9. A plain reading of this section makes

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

133A of the Act was conducted on six premises of the assessee on 13/02/2019. Summons was issued to various donors, President and accountant of the assessee. Many statements were recorded. Thereafter, Re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated against the appellant from AY 2012-13 to AY 2017-18. 4. The learned AO, while concluding the 147 assessments, held that

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

133A of the Act was conducted on six premises of the assessee on 13/02/2019. Summons was issued to various donors, President and accountant of the assessee. Many statements were recorded. Thereafter, Re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated against the appellant from AY 2012-13 to AY 2017-18. 4. The learned AO, while concluding the 147 assessments, held that

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

133A of the Act was conducted on six premises of the assessee on 13/02/2019. Summons was issued to various donors, President and accountant of the assessee. Many statements were recorded. Thereafter, Re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 were initiated against the appellant from AY 2012-13 to AY 2017-18. 4. The learned AO, while concluding the 147 assessments, held that

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.365 & 366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. S Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Both Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017-18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

133A of the IT Act at the premises of Kishor Patil, who files IT returns of the salaried employees of various companies and PSUs. That survey collectively revealed calming of bogus deductions under Chapter Vl-A, i.e. deductions under section 80D, 80DDE, 80G, 80GG, 80E and 80EE and also claiming of bogus house property loss i.e. payments towards interest

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.365 & 366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. S Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Both Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017-18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

133A of the IT Act at the premises of Kishor Patil, who files IT returns of the salaried employees of various companies and PSUs. That survey collectively revealed calming of bogus deductions under Chapter Vl-A, i.e. deductions under section 80D, 80DDE, 80G, 80GG, 80E and 80EE and also claiming of bogus house property loss i.e. payments towards interest

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 06.03.2019. During the course of survey, a diary was impounded wherein certain unaccounted receipts amounting to Rs. 14,85,300/- were found which the assessee declared as an additional income on account of professional/consultation charges, remained to be recorded

GANRAJ HOMES LLP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

133A of the Act has no evidentiary value: i) CIT vs. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) ii) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 129 Taxman 416 (Ker) iii) CIT vs. P. Balasubramaniam (2013) 33 taxmann.com 130 (Mad) 18. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no arbitrary addition to the income can be made based