SARIKA JAGANNATH PATIL,RAIGAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, PANVEL

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2806/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

unexplained investment in immovable property by the assessee. He submitted that the immovable property has been purchased in the name of assessee and her husband and total payment towards purchase consideration of the said immovable property has been made by her husband from his own sources as well as from housing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR vs. SHRI VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

house. 5 ITA No.446/PUN/2022 & IT(SS)A No. 21/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2009-10 13. Further, in response to Q. No. 5 he stated that he does not know the names of persons written on page No. 21 except the name of India Global and Rajesh Gun. 14. Further, in response to Q. No. 6 he stated that he does not know

AMEETSINGH AJITSINGH RAJPAL,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ameetsingh Ajitsingh Rajpal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 479, Eden Villa, Rasta Peth, Kasba Peth, Pune- 411011. Pan : Aaqpr3148E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Riya Oswal Revenue By : Smt. N. C. Shilpa Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 54F Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 92,85,214/-Solely On The Ground That The Reinvestment Was Not Made In A Residential House.

investment was made within the stipulated period and the property is capable of being used for residential purposes. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that Section 54F does not restrict exemption merely because the property is situated in an agricultural zone, nor does it exclude a farmhouse from the ambit of a residential house. 6. The disallowance

MRS. SNEHAL SAMEER BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 13(2), PUNE, PUNE

Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrs. Snehal Sameer Bhujbal, V The Income Tax Officer, Sanswadi, Nagar Road, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Pune – 412208. Maharashtra. Pan: Blcpb5495C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 16.05.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held

property amounting to Rs.1,40,30,100/- during the financial year 2017- 18 out of which Rs.1,26,01,329/- was fianced through India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. The Assessee has failed to furnish the source of balance investment amounting to Rs.23,00,771/-. Therefore, the unexplained

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

property was Rs.5,03,08,440/-. Hence, during the assessment proceedings the books of the assessee were rejected u/s.145(3) of the Income Tax Act and it was concluded that the assessee has made unexplained investment to the tune of Rs.2,45,86,962/- i.e. (Rs.5,03,08,440 - Rs.2,57,21,478/-) and the same was added

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

property was Rs.5,03,08,440/-. Hence, during the assessment proceedings the books of the assessee were rejected u/s.145(3) of the Income Tax Act and it was concluded that the assessee has made unexplained investment to the tune of Rs.2,45,86,962/- i.e. (Rs.5,03,08,440 - Rs.2,57,21,478/-) and the same was added

SAHEBRAO RAMDAS CHAUDHARI,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) JALGAON, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

House Property. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any aforesaid grounds of appeal.” 3. Learned DR vehemently argued in support ofboth the learned lower authorities action making sec.69 addition of Rs.12,41,000/- representing unexplained investment

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

property transaction is exactly in the line with seized document. 8. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23,10,817/- made on account of unexplained investment made in Fine Living Bungalow, Jalna by relying on the cash flow statement furnished by assessee though

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from „other sources‟ because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO. ,NANDED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , NANDED

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO.,LATUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor 8 ITA.No.625/PUN./2024 is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 698, and 69C treat unexplained investments

SHATRUNJAY PARKS AND RESORTS P LTD., ,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is allowed

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

House, The Income Tax Officer 1177, E-Ward, 10th Lane (Central), Aaykar Sadan, Rajarampur, Kolhapur. vs. Maharashtra. Bodhi Towers, Salisbury PIN – 416 008 Park, Pune – 411 037. PAN AAICS6797F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S Shingte For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date of Hearing : 11.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee

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

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, assessee failed to appear before both the Lower Authorities. ITA No.2530/PUN/2024 [A] 4. On the other hand, the ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower

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.

investment from unexplained income on account of purchase of open plots of the land u/s. 69 of the IT Act, 1961 ignoring and without properly appreciating the facts and detailed submissions made by the appellant before both the lower authorities contending that under the facts of the appellant's case and the details and documents submitted before them neither

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

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , 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

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , 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

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , 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