ARJUN BHAGARAM PARMAR,RATNAGIRI vs. WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated herein above

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.115/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arjun Bhagaram Parmar, Vs Ward-1, Room No. 11, Swar Vihar, Ratnagiri Garah Sankulan Sarang, Khend, Tal-Chiplun, Ratnagiri-415605 Maharashtra Pan-Ayqpm4825M Appellant Respondent

159/-, loss from house property at Rs. 79,278/- and deduction under Chapter VIA at Rs. 37,407/-. But all these details remained to be submitted due to non filing of income tax return. Ld. AO has observed that the assessee has not filed return of income. I also observe that during the assessment proceedings assessee has successfully demonstrated that

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

section 153C to the present proceedings is not upheld, then the matter may kindly be restored to the file of the Hon. CIT(A) to adjudicate ground no. 1 & 2 of the grounds raised before Hon. CIT(A) challenging re-opening u/s 147. Alternatively, the respondent may kindly be permitted to argue the ground relying upon Rule

PRIDE AND EXPERT PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1) , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

159 DTR is distinguishable as the issue before the court was regarding in some years depreciation was claimed u/s 32 and then discontinued. 5. The reliance of CIT(A) in the case of Shakti Metal Depot 189 Taxman 329 is not at all applicable to the facts of the appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

159/- made by the AO towards deemed rent on vacant property. The assessee was having a proprietorship concern by the name and style of M/s Aarushi Developers, which was engaged in the business of properties. The AO observed that the built up area of 550 sq.ft., which was part of stock in trade, was vacant throughout the year. He computed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

159/- made by the AO towards deemed rent on vacant property. The assessee was having a proprietorship concern by the name and style of M/s Aarushi Developers, which was engaged in the business of properties. The AO observed that the built up area of 550 sq.ft., which was part of stock in trade, was vacant throughout the year. He computed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property.\n3.\nSubsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the case as per the provisions\nof section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 25.07.2022 by recording\nas under:\n\"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nCIRCLE 7, PUNE\nTo\nKOLTE-PATIL\nLIMITED\nINTEGRATED\nTOWNSHIPS\nSURVEY

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property.\n3.\nSubsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the case as per the provisions\nof section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 25.07.2022 by recording\nas under:\n“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nCIRCLE 7, PUNE\nTo\nKOLTE-PATIL\nINTEGRATED\nTOWNSHIPS\nLIMITED\nSURVEY

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 in the bank account between 11.11.2016 to 01.12.2016 as under: Date Name of Bank Account Amount(Rs.) 10-11-2016 Corporation Bank 2,00,000/- 11-11-2016 Corporation Bank

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), PUNE vs. SURESH KUMAR LAKHOTIA , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

house property income, capital gains and income from other sources. 2. In the return of income, the Appellant merged personal balance sheet with balance sheet of proprietary concern, which resulted in adding opening capital of Rs. 19.04 crores and corresponding personal assets in the balance sheet. 3. The learned AO considers this treatment as introduction of capital and issued show

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

houses\netc. in the Marvel Project and remaining amount was paid\nagainst some immovable properties at Paithan Road,\nAurangabad. In the statement, it was also stated that no such\nhuge cash was deposited in his bank account nor there is\npurchase of any land or other asset in cash which could\ncorroborate the receipt of such a huge amount. Further

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

159 Taxman 26 (P & H) (iii) S.M.J. Housing v. CIT[2013] 38 taxmann.com 203 (Mad) (iv) Pr.CIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC) (v) Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 335 (Del) (vi) Pr.CIT v. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. [2021] 435 ITR 122 (Del) (vii) Trident Estate

SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

house hold activities), and Sannyasashram (renouncing material world), which is a materialistic arrangement for one social group to dominate another, and by reinforcing identity based on bodily categories. Thus, the entire concept itself is against the social development and not for any charity of the people at large at all. 2 Further verification shows that the Trust Deed contains

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

House No.B12, Income Tax (Central), Aayakar vs. Pune-Satara Road, Sadan, Bodhi Towers, Salisbury Bibwewadi, PUNE. Park, PUNE – 411 037. PIN – 412 202. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN ABFPG6929E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. : This appeal filed

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section

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

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Housing Society, Kothrud, Pune\nas well at the office premise at 4-7, A J Crystal, Tilak Road, Pune, various\nincriminating documents were found and seized.\nShri Manoj Chhajed is found to be maintaining bank account with Axis\nBank bearing account no. 350010100056665. On examination of said bank\naccount, it is noticed that there are many credit entries from Kolkata

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Housing Society, Kothrud, Pune\nas well at the office premise at 4-7, A J Crystal, Tilak Road, Pune, various\nincriminating documents were found and seized.\nShri Manoj Chhajed is found to be maintaining bank account with Axis\nBank bearing account no. 350010100056665. On examination of said bank\naccount, it is noticed that there are many credit entries from Kolkata

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

house for itself. However, in the Assessee’s case, it is seen from the perusal of email correspondence that there are instances where the Assessee has been charged for the services for which it would not have paid as an independent enterprise. - Mere description of the services without demonstrating the specific service rendered by the AE is not sufficient

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

house for itself. However, in the Assessee’s case, it is seen from the perusal of email correspondence that there are instances where the Assessee has been charged for the services for which it would not have paid as an independent enterprise. - Mere description of the services without demonstrating the specific service rendered by the AE is not sufficient