INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANVEL vs. PRAMOD ARJUN THAKUR,, RAIGAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.860/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

1. The respondent is an individual having income from house property, capital gains and other sources. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed by the appellant on 31.03.2017, declaring therein total income of Rs.7,78,000/-. Addition of Rs.6,54,61,100/- was made by the Id AO by relying upon the provisions of section 56

KISHOR NAMDEVRAO KACHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(2),, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.63/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 56(1)(vii)(b)(i) addition of Rs.1.20 crores in the course of assessment herein dated 27.02.2014; as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. We deem it appropriate to extract the CIT(A)’s detail discussion in issue as follows :- “6.3 DECISION: I have perused the assessment order and the submission made by the appellant as above carefully

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

AKASH ,NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT), WARD-1, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

House No.1140, Sector-29, Officer(IT), Noida – 201303. Ward-1, Pune. Uttar Pradesh. PAN: AFIPA4977M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Ms. Neha Thakur – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 28/08/2024 Date of pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: Brief facts of the case : As per the assessment order, in this case, the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

vii) of sub-section (2) of section 56. 23 ITA.No.1375/PUN./2024 (Tapadiya Construction Ltd.) 14. We note that the seized diary based on which the amount of Rs. 1,37,73,000/- has been arrived by the search team, the Ld.CIT(A) has made a detailed discussion in para 5.4 of the impugned order wherein the Ld.CIT

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

56,225/- 27,41,121/- 3.1 Further, on perusal of assessment records, it is found that there is substantial variation between consideration received or accrued and value adopted or assessed or assessable. The same difference is corroborated by the Index-II submitted with respect to the concerned sales. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had relied

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

1,2 and 4 against the deletion of addition of Rs.86,63,700/- and Rs.7,93,62,371/- made by the 35 ITA.No.987/PUN./2025 (M/s. Shree Sai Properties) Assessing Officer. We observe that the information contained in the alleged seized material is only having a reference of the words “367 Makhmalabad” and that referring to sale consideration received through

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Section 36\n(1) (vii) of the Income-tax Act, and further in view of the interpretation\nas stated here-in-above. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed\nthe appeal of the assessee.\n10. The Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Industrial Development\nCorpn. Lid. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 365/25 taxmann.com 564, while\ndealing with the State

SANDVIK MACHINING SOLUTION AB, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS) SANDVIK TOLLING SEVERIGE AB),,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

house developed production systems such as GSS and related applications. Apart from the aforesaid receipts, assessee had also received licence fee, and technical fee which were offered to tax at 10% including receipts of exports and raw-materials. The assessee was thereafter asked to show cause as to why the total receipts should not be considered as taxable income

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Section 36\n(1) (vii) of the Income-tax Act, and further in view of the interpretation\nas stated here-in-above. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed\nthe appeal of the assessee.\n\n10. The Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Industrial Development\nCorpn. Lid. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 365/25 taxmann.com 564, while\ndealing with

BHARAT KESHAVLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

house property u/s. 23 of the Act. The assessee’s arguments to this effect are rejected accordingly. 9. Lastly comes the issue of section 56(2)(vii) made applicable in assessee’s case on account of alleged difference between stamp valuation and actual purchase consideration qua the sale deed executed in the relevant previous year. 6 ITA.No.855/PUN/2019 Shri Bharat

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

56,72,950 NIL 2013-14 24/01/2019 1,33,93,090 1,00,00,000 2014-15 24/01/2019 1,78,36,710 1,00,00,000 2015-16 24/01/2019 22,27,420 NIL 2016-17 24/01/2019 1,46,95,030 1,00,00,000 2017-18 24/01/2019 1,75,91,360 1,00,00,000 6 IT(SS)A Nos.91

BHUJPAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3(5), PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.21/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bhujbal Brothers Construction The Income Tax Officer, Company, Vs Ward-3(5), Pune. Bhujbal House, S.No.28 , Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Pan: Aagfb 7974 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 04.11.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3Ito Wd. 3(5)/388/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

House, S.No.28 , Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. PAN: AAGFB 7974 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri S P Walimbe – DR Date of hearing 24/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This Assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’s order

UJWAL FINE HOMES,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.491/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ujwal Fine Homes, V The Principal High Bliss, S No.23, Dhayri S Commissioner Of Income Narhe Road, Pune – 411041. Tax, Pune -3, Pune. Pan; Aabfu7293E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune U/Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 09.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In Issuing The Notice U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2018-19

housing project called Ujwal Paradise. Assessment Order for A.Y.2018-19 was passed on 17/04/2021, accepting the returned income of Rs.11,32,63,182/-. 5 4.1 The relevant paragraphs of the assessment order are reproduced here as under : “3. It e-filed its return of income on 10-10-2018 admitting a total income of Rs.11,32,63,182/- vide acknowledgement

ARCHANA MURALIDHAR BHANDWALKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

House No.681/4, Pune Satara Road, Gaurav Apt, Dhanakwadi, Pune – 411043. PAN: AUCPB7036M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by Shri Ambarnath Khule-JCIT(Through Virtual Hearing) Date of hearing 26/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner

ARCHANA MURALIDHAR BHANDWALKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

House No.681/4, Pune\nv\nSatara Road, Gaurav Apt,\nDhanakwadi, Pune – 411043.\nPAN: AUCPB7036M\nAppellant/ Assessee\nRespondent / Revenue\nAssessee by\nSmt. Deepa Khare\nRevenue by\nShri Ambarnath Khule-JCIT(Through\nVirtual Hearing)\nDate of hearing\n26/11/2025\nDate of pronouncement | 28/11/2025\nआदेश/ ORDER\nPER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:\nThese two appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate\norders of ld.Commissioner

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

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure incurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form No.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee submitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in Form

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

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure incurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form No.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee submitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in Form