VIPINCHANDRA M. CHOKHAWALI,NAVAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Along With Stay Application 06/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1551/Pun/2024) Vipinchandra M. Chokhawala, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Old Station Road, Dal Mill, Dhule Nandurbar, Navapur-425418 Maharashtra Pan : Adnpc8588M Appellant Respondent

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “House Property, Income from S.A.No.06/PUN/2024 Partnership firms, Capital Gains and Income from Other sources. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 04.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.78,24,250/-. Against the said return of income

SINDHUDURG ZILLA MADHYAMIK VA UCHHA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK VA SHIKSHKETAR KARMACHARI PATSANSTHA LTD,SINDHUDURGNAGARI KUDAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER KUDAL, KUDAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.968/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sindhuurg Zilla Madhyamik Va The Income Tax Officer, Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak Va V Kudal. Shikshketar Karmachari S Patsanstha Ltd., Plot No.33, Sindhudurgnagari, Kudal Dist, Sindhudurg. Maharashtra – 416812. Pan: Aagas6518L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak, Irs – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/04/2024 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.08.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 21.04.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.08.2023 emanating from assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 21.04.2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.968/PUN/2023 [A] Sindhuurg Zilla Madhyamik Va Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak Va Shikshketar Karmachari Patsanstha Ltd., “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

MANOJ SURESH TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

250): "There is, therefore, nothing in sub-section (6) which should compel us to hold that in the case of a registered firm, the assessee contemplated by sub-section (1) can only be the registered firm and not a partner of the registered firm. Where a registered firm manufactures or produces articles in the industrial undertaking, every partner

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

2)….. (3) Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the value referred to in sub-section (1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1016/Pun/2024

250/- being 25% share of assessee in the total value of immovable property situated at S.No.883/1/1, Nashik admeasuring 9457 sq.mtrs. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of the AO and further contended that the assessee has failed to bring on record any reason why the agreement entered into in the year 1997 was not registered

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 06.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) r.w.s. 143(3B) of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2 ITA.No.2719/PUN./2024 (Epygen Biotech Pvt. Ltd.) 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- (1) On the facts and circumstances

BHARAT DEWAKINANDAN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE., PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 23(1)(a) of the Act is relevant for determining the income from house property and concerns determination of the annual letting value of such property. That provision talks of "the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year." Further, the words "the sum for which the property might reasonably

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2019-20 and 2020-21, both dated 02.05.2024 emanating from separate Assessment Order u/s.153A r.w.s 144 of the I.T.Act, both dated 23.09.2021.For the sake of convenience, these two appeals ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 1.1 The assessee in ITA No.1438/PUN/2024 has raised

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2019-20 and 2020-21, both dated 02.05.2024 emanating from separate Assessment Order u/s.153A r.w.s 144 of the I.T.Act, both dated 23.09.2021.For the sake of convenience, these two appeals ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 1.1 The assessee in ITA No.1438/PUN/2024 has raised

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing, the Ld. AO exercised his jurisdiction u/s 133(6) of the Act and called relevant information from his banker viz; Vishweshwar Co-op. Bank, Union Bank and PDCC Bank with whom the assessee maintained his bank accounts. The bank statements did not confirm the receipt/credit of aforestated amount but newly revealed to the Ld. AO that, during the year

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

House, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002 PAN : AAATI2653M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 14-07-2025 Date of pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above batch of 5 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated