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

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(2)(vii

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

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

2. We next note that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action making 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

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

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

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

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

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

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Bad debts - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether even when a part of debt is written off it can be allowed as bad debt - Held, yes - Whether once a provision for doubtful debt has been debited in P/L a/c and corresponding provision has been credited or reduced from debtor's a/c on assets side

SHRI MAHADEV TUKARAM KANCHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-14(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1674/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 | Shri Mahadev Tukaram Kanchan, 45, Mahadev Niwas, Parivartan Society, Ashram Road, Urali Kanchan, Pune-412202. PAN : AWXPK5330Q | Vs. | ITO, Ward-14(3), Pune. | | Appellant | | Respondent | Assessee by : Shri B. C. Malakar, Shri Yuvraj V. Bhandare Revenue by : Shri Bharat Andhale Date of hearing : 04.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.01.

56(2)(vii) of the Act nor the same could be confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC merely following the observation and findings of the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order. The addition so confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order dismissing the appeal of the appellant being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in- law be deleted

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

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 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

2), the amount of any bad\ndebt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the\naccounts of the assessee for the previous year\"\n6. On perusal of the provisions here-in-above, it reveals that the only\nrequirement for allowing the bad debt under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the\nIncome-tax Act, is that

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

2), the amount of any bad\ndebt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the\naccounts of the assessee for the previous year\"\n\n6. On perusal of the provisions here-in-above, it reveals that the only\nrequirement for allowing the bad debt under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the\nIncome-tax Act, is that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Housing and Area Development\nAct. Accordingly, even if the respondent contends that the land was\nacquired under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,\n1966, the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act would not be applicable\nto such acquisition in view of its specific exclusion under Schedule V.\n15. Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act provides for exemption from\npayment

SHRI AJINKYA MAHADEV KANCHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-43(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 250(6) of the Act being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in- law be quashed/set-aside. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and consequently confirming the various arbitrary additions made

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