MANISH I. JAIN vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

house property, repayment of loan and other related expenditure such as telephone and electricity in the hands of assessee as perquisite. 5.1 The ld. AR pointed that the flats in question are used for business purpose. The employees/officials of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. use flat at Khar, Mumbai for stay as and when they visit to Mumbai

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

house property, repayment of loan and other related expenditure such as telephone and electricity in the hands of assessee as perquisite. 5.1 The ld. AR pointed that the flats in question are used for business purpose. The employees/officials of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. use flat at Khar, Mumbai for stay as and when they visit to Mumbai

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

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

Housing Society. It is undisputed fact. Therefore, 10 Shri Rajendra L. Agarwal we are of the opinion that in principle, the claim of the assessee should be allowed on the enhancement which was considered by the AO. However, the same is subject to the verification of the evidence and documents filed by assessee before the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings

RAJENDRA BABULAL MALU,HUF,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, ICHALKARANJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

house property. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 29.09.2015 disclosing total income of Rs.17,63,100/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Ichalkaranji (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 15.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

ARCHANA RAJENDRA MALU,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

house property. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 29.09.2015 disclosing total income of Rs.17,63,100/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Ichalkaranji (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 15.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Properties Private Limited Va. ACIT (2023) TaxCorp (DT) 89809 (HC- BOMBAY) c. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited Vs. ACIT (2023) TaxCorp (DT) 89894 (HC-BOMBAY) d. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kapstone Construction Private Limited Vs. ACIT (2023) TaxCorp (DT) 9049 (HC-BOMBAY

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE, (SMALLER HUF),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

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

Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. PAN : AALPC4991M Appellant Respondent 2 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 Assessee by : Shri Ratan Samal, Mrs. Ruchi M. Rathod & Shri H. G. Sharma Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel Date of hearing : 06.06.2023 Date of pronouncement : 28.06.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : These are the cross appeals filed

PRAVIN NARAYAN ATTARDE,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 69A of the Act is applicable in the present case. Further, the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of CIT vs. Hersh Washesher Chadha (ITA No. 676/2023) (Delhi High Court) but the judgment does not pertain to present case for the reason that the present case relates to cash deposit instead of maintenance of books of account