ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

260/- on additions / disallowances made by the AO on account of estimated income of Rs.18 lacs offered by the assessee, gross profit additions sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) at Rs.2,68,825/- and on change of head of income at Rs.4,99,957/-. In the present case, the perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

SATISHKUMAR VISHNUDAS BHUTADA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

260/- on additions / disallowances made by the AO on account of estimated income of Rs.18 lacs offered by the assessee, gross profit additions sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) at Rs.2,68,825/- and on change of head of income at Rs.4,99,957/-. In the present case, the perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

260/- on additions / disallowances made by the AO on account of estimated income of Rs.18 lacs offered by the assessee, gross profit additions sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) at Rs.2,68,825/- and on change of head of income at Rs.4,99,957/-. In the present case, the perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,MALEGAON vs. ITO WARD 1, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 275(1A) in the asst. order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.254 of the Act. 3] The learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that there was a variation in the charge/limb stated by the A.O. in the asst. order at the time of initiating penalty proceedings and at the time of levying penalty in the order u/s 271

M/S. SHREE HATKESHWARA CARGO MOVERS,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1586 & 1587/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Movers Pune Office No.8, Wonder City, Katraj By-Pass Road, Pune – 411046 Pan: Aatfs8504N Appellant Respondent

260, thereby including the declared income. Accordingly, the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 with a nominal addition, determining total income at Rs.1,05,68,000. Thereafter, the AO imposed penalty with reference to the amount offered during the course of Survey and included suo motu by the assessee in total income. The ld. CIT(A) sustained

M/S. SHREE HATKESHWARA CARGO MOVERS,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1586 & 1587/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Movers Pune Office No.8, Wonder City, Katraj By-Pass Road, Pune – 411046 Pan: Aatfs8504N Appellant Respondent

260, thereby including the declared income. Accordingly, the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 with a nominal addition, determining total income at Rs.1,05,68,000. Thereafter, the AO imposed penalty with reference to the amount offered during the course of Survey and included suo motu by the assessee in total income. The ld. CIT(A) sustained

RADHAMADHAV REALCON PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - 10,, PUNE

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आय आयकर आय आय कर कर अपील कर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.137/Pun/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 वष"

271 E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"] for alleged violation of s. 269T of the Act, without appreciating that the appellant had not committed any default in terms of s. 269T at all. Neither was there any relevant "loan" or deposit" taken by the appellant, nor was there any "repayment" made by the appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), PUNE, BODHI TOWER vs. IRANNA BHUJANG NADGAM, THITE VASTI

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

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

section 69 of the IT Act and added to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC is separately initiated. [Addition: Rs.28,37,83,357/-]” 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition by observing as under: “6. Decision: The appellant in its ground of appeal assailed the AO in adding the total of cash sales of Rs.283783357

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), PUNE, BODHI TOWER vs. IRANNA BHUJANG NADGAM, THITE VASTI

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

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

section 69 of the IT Act and added to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC is separately initiated. [Addition: Rs.28,37,83,357/-]” 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition by observing as under: “6. Decision: The appellant in its ground of appeal assailed the AO in adding the total of cash sales of Rs.283783357

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-" 6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-\"\n6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, again, on 29-12-2012, whose copy has also been placed on record. Thereafter, the AO 6 Atlas Copco (India) Limited A.Yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10 passed the final assessment order dated 27-02-2012 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act determining total income at Rs.156.73 crore. 8. From the above factual

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, again, on 29-12-2012, whose copy has also been placed on record. Thereafter, the AO 6 Atlas Copco (India) Limited A.Yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10 passed the final assessment order dated 27-02-2012 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act determining total income at Rs.156.73 crore. 8. From the above factual

SHIVAJI VISHNU CHAVAN,PUNE vs. UITO WARD-5(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1143/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shivaji Vishnu Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Gomukh, 92/2, Gangtok, S Ward-5(4), Pune. Narsapur, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaspc1061B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Shivaji Vishnu Chavan In Form No.36 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2011-12, Dated 12.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 50C of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, assessee’s share of Rs.5,42,000 is treated as his income of the year under the head Income from capital gain and unexplained money u/s. 68 of the Act and brought to tax . Penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c ) of the Act has been initiated separately by issuing

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details, based on which the ld.CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, who proposed an addition

RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,RATNAGIRI vs. ITO WARD 2, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Act, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on in merit in levying interest u/s. 234A, 2348, 234C of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal