DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

72,592/- 73,07,433/- 4. The application was admitted vide order dated 245D(1) on 01.04.2014.. The application was further allowed to be proceeded with vide order u/s 245D(2C) dated 26.05.2014. During the settlement proceedings, the Settlement Commission had made addition of Rs.39,20,00,000/-, in excess of additional income offered by the assessee on account

VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

72,592/- 73,07,433/- 4. The application was admitted vide order dated 245D(1) on 01.04.2014.. The application was further allowed to be proceeded with vide order u/s 245D(2C) dated 26.05.2014. During the settlement proceedings, the Settlement Commission had made addition of Rs.39,20,00,000/-, in excess of additional income offered by the assessee on account

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.1

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

house property and decide the issue\nas per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The first issue raised by the\nassessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.\n13.\nThe second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to\nthe order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest of\nRs.1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 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, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 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 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 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.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

House Property and thus reduced the total income. In this case, it was only because of survey conducted by Department, the wrong claims were detected. The assessee had never voluntarily disclosed his wrong claims. 8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs N G technologies Ltd [2015] 370 ITR 7 (Delhi

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

house property, he would be entitled to exemption under section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

house property, he would be entitled to exemption under section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This

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

property development since over 35 years. The Assessee Company is one of the oldest and renowned name in Aurangabad in the construction business. 1.2 Being a company, the accounts of the Assessee company are audited by an independent statutory auditor, who, after full verification, has certified the accounts as depicting true and fair view of the accounts. 1.3 The Assessee

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

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

72 taxmann.com 254 (Delhi) was not referred. The relevant portion at para 3 ITA No. 783/PUN/2023, A.Y. 2017-18 Nos. 6 to 9 in the case of Pride and Expert Properties Private Limited (supra) is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference : “6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note 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 :

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 : ITA No’s.365 & 366/PUN/2023 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A] “1. The learned CIT is not justified in raising penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,34,632/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars

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 :

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 : ITA No’s.365 & 366/PUN/2023 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A] “1. The learned CIT is not justified in raising penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,34,632/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars

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

72 pages assessee has filed various details including financial statement purchases/sale bills, registration certificate, computation of income, Tax Challan, Form 26AS and other details but it seems that assessee has not furnished the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 even though assessee has claimed to have 4 paid self assessment tax of Rs. 93,700/- and there

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

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

72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A

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

72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A

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

72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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

72,88,916 under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, the appellant highlighted that the company had commenced its business activities, including the identification of land, construction of the factory, and incurring expenses related to research and development, salaries, and financial costs. The appellant asserted that these expenses, claimed under Section 35(1)(iv) for scientific research, were legitimate