INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. AJARA MERCHANTS CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AJARA, AJARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1138 & 1693/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Main Branch, Nalawade Building, Main Road, Ajara, Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aadca1779J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.03.2024 & 13.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Quantum Appeal I.E Ita No.1138/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

Penalty u/s 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were also initiated. 5. The assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the above assessment order. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- “6. The appellant is a credit

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

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

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

46A of the Income Tax Rules, despite the fact that specific ground of appeal was raised in this regard. 8. That, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has passed the order u/s 250 in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without appreciating the overall facts of the case

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

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

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

46A of the Income Tax Rules, despite the fact that specific ground of appeal was raised in this regard. 8. That, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has passed the order u/s 250 in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without appreciating the overall facts of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) Addition of Rs.6,45,95,500/- comprising of Rs.1,65,66,500/-, Rs.4,60,57,000/- and Rs.19,72,000/- on account of unexplained/ unsubstantiated sundry creditors/booking advance/unexplained liability by observing in paras 8.4, 9.2 and 10.3 as under

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) Addition of Rs.6,45,95,500/- comprising of Rs.1,65,66,500/-, Rs.4,60,57,000/- and Rs.19,72,000/- on account of unexplained/ unsubstantiated sundry creditors/booking advance/unexplained liability by observing in paras 8.4, 9.2 and 10.3 as under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SUNIL ASHER, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1289/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, V Sunil Asher, Ward-6(1), Pune. S B-602, Verde Residence Collection, Near Gurunanak Dairy, Kalyaninagar, Maharashtra – 411037. Pan: Acapa1980B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 18.04.2024 For The A.Y.2016-17, Emanating From Assessment Order U/Sec.144 Of The Act For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 16.12.2018. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act, By Accepting The Claim Of The Assessee That The Source Of The Investments Of Rs.5.87 Cr. Are Lifetime Accumulations & Savings Of The Assessee Made Out Of Earnings In Canada & Thailand, As Well As In India, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Any Supporting Documentary Evidences During The Assessment Proceedings Before The Ao. While Doing So, The Ld.Cit(A) Also Failed To Actually Examine Whether The Accumulations Claimed To Be Past Savings, Were Disclosed In The Itrs Filed For The Respective Years & Offered To Tax.

u/s 68 of the Act, by accepting the claim of the assessee that the source of the investments of Rs.5.87 Cr. are lifetime accumulations and savings of the assessee made out of earnings in Canada and Thailand, as well as in India, without appreciating the fact that assessee has failed to produce any supporting documentary evidences during the assessment proceedings

RATNAGIRI.ITO1@INCOMETAX.GOV.IN, RATNAGIRI vs. MANGALA HARI INGALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed for Statistical Purpose

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1056/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer-1, Mangala Hari Ingale, Ratnagiri. V G-1604, Empire Square, Near S Auto Cluster Chinchwad East, Pune City, Chinchwad East S.O., Pune – 411019. Pan: Aaipi0141G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.08.2023. The Revenue For A.Y.2018-19 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “I. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Accepting The Self-Serving Documents Not Corroborated By Evidence & Which Had Not Stood The Test Of Enquiries In Assessment Proceedings. Ii. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Allowing The Ao To Examine The Additional Evidence Admitted By Him As Per The Provisions U/S Mangala Hari Ingale [R]

u/s 69 of the Act. vi. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC may be set- aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. vi. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/grounds, which may be necessary.” 2. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AUTOCOMPS ENGINEERING (PUNE) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

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

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

u/s 144 of the Act made the addition. When the matter was carried before Ld.CIT(A), he granted relief to the assessee. Before us, one of the grounds raised by the Revenue is violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. At this moment it would be relevant to refer to provisions of Rule 46A which reads

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. AKASH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

271(1)(c) of the Income tax is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Also initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271A for failure to keep, maintain books of account, documents. 07. In view of the above discussion and on the basis of material available on record, the total income of the assessee company is computed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI vs. SANJAY GHODAWAT BUILDCON LLP , CHIPRI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

46A(3) of the I.T.Rules 1962. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above all grounds raised at the time of proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal which may please be granted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Limited Liability partnership concern engaged in the business

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Further, on the issue of allowing depreciation u/s.32 of the Act, in respect of the capital assets (building) purchased with exempt income, the AO held that the claim of depreciation is not allowable on the said assets. AO noted that

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately." 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the erstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in whose name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately." 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the erstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in whose name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately." 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the erstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in whose name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately." 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the erstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in whose name

RAJKUMAR PARSHURAM MHATRE,POYNAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD PANVEL

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

penalty proceedings under Sections 271(C) without proper appreciation of facts and legal position Relief may please be granted. 5. The appellant craves leave to add and or alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that various documents were filed before