ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

properties. However, ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with such arguments and he affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer observing as follows : “6.4. In Ground No. 3,4 & 5, the assessee challenged the treatment of advance taken by him from one, Frontier Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 6,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. I have

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

properties. However, ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with such arguments and he affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer observing as follows : “6.4. In Ground No. 3,4 & 5, the assessee challenged the treatment of advance taken by him from one, Frontier Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 6,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. I have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

house property, business and profession and other sources. A search action u/s 132 was conducted in the card of the assessee on 02.05.2013 and accordingly a notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,00,324/-. Thereafter, assessment under section

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

unexplained cash credit in the books and the assessee is unable to explain the nature and source to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and the same is treated as income. It means that the amount which are credited in the books of account and not shown as income, i.e. they have shown as liability or any other credit

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

unexplained cash credit in the books and the assessee is unable to explain the nature and source to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and the same is treated as income. It means that the amount which are credited in the books of account and not shown as income, i.e. they have shown as liability or any other credit

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

unexplained cash credit in the books and the assessee is unable to explain the nature and source to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and the same is treated as income. It means that the amount which are credited in the books of account and not shown as income, i.e. they have shown as liability or any other credit

NITTEN SHRIKANT CHOUGULE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

cash credit. 11. In appeal it was contended that assessing officer has erred in making addition of entire sale consideration. Since there was purchase price of the plot of land and expenditure was made in registration etc. only the capital gain should be assessed to tax. 12. Appellant has not denied that the property was not shown

PRASANNA KANTILAL MEHTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

cash of Rs.8,50,000/- found deposited in the locker subsequent to the investment in the said property, cannot be given credit for investment made In the property. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that income accrual of Rs.13,06,380/- relating to this year was also available for investment in the said property cannot be accepted and the Assessing

PRASANNA KANTILAL MEHTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

cash of Rs.8,50,000/- found deposited in the locker subsequent to the investment in the said property, cannot be given credit for investment made In the property. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that income accrual of Rs.13,06,380/- relating to this year was also available for investment in the said property cannot be accepted and the Assessing

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No. 1275, Vindhare Village Post Digode, Tal Uran Panvel, Vs. Dist. Raigad-401206 PAN : ASJPP8541J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prakash Pandit Department by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 02-02-2026 Date of 18-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The above three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No. 1275, Vindhare Village Post Digode, Tal Uran Panvel, Vs. Dist. Raigad-401206 PAN : ASJPP8541J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prakash Pandit Department by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 02-02-2026 Date of 18-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The above three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO - WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No. 1275, Vindhare Village Post Digode, Tal Uran Panvel, Vs. Dist. Raigad-401206 PAN : ASJPP8541J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prakash Pandit Department by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 02-02-2026 Date of 18-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The above three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against

ROHIDAS BHIKU JAMBHULKAR,HINJAWADI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CIT (A), PUNE-3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2530/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rohidas Bhiku Jambhulkar, V The Commissioner Of At Hinjawadi, Near Ganesh S Income Tax (Appeals) Mandir, Tal.Mulshi, Cit(A), Pune – 3. Dist-Pune – 411057. Pan: Ahypj9277D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri J.G.Bhumkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sanjay Dhivare –Addl.Cit(Dr) Through Virtual Hearing Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2012-13 Dated 28.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of

unexplained cash deposit of Rs.14,94,000/-, the ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has furnished regular Return of Income on 16.08.2013 and has offered Income from House Property at Rs.1,13,780/- and income under presumptive taxation under section 44AD of the Act at Rs.3,96,707/- on the gross turnover of Rs.22,34,716/- and however

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

unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that 2 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus, given an opportunity your appellant is in position to provide all the details of such loan amount credited in bank account and therefore the entire addition in unwarranted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that 2 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus, given an opportunity your appellant is in position to provide all the details of such loan amount credited in bank account and therefore the entire addition in unwarranted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

KISAN RAGHUNATH NANAWARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 329/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Shri Kisan Raghunath Nanaware, New Market Yard, At & Post Nira, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune. Pan : Aeupn7689E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent

cash to some of the persons. In view thereof, the addition of Rs.1.75 Crores was made on account of unexplained investment in money lending business. 7. The next addition which was made in the hands of assessee on account of unexplained investment in house property. The assessee had constructed residential 6 A.Y.2002-03 house building at Nira, Tq. Purandar, Dist.-Pune

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act is\nhereby confirmed. This ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.”\n\n19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nrecord placed before us. In Ground No.1, assessee has raised\nthe issue that 1d.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of\nRs.97,61,190/- made by the AO denying the claim