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 u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961. 11. Final assessment u/s 115BBC-As against the firm belief till 29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019, has taxed the donations of Rs. 1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations' u/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between

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 u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961. 11. Final assessment u/s 115BBC-As against the firm belief till 29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019, has taxed the donations of Rs. 1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations' u/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between

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 u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961. 11. Final assessment u/s 115BBC-As against the firm belief till 29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019, has taxed the donations of Rs. 1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations' u/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between

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

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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment

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

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

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961.\n11. Final assessment_u/s_115BBC-As against the firm belief till\n29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019,\nhas taxed the donations of Rs.1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations'\nu/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961.\nGround of Appeal No. 1 & 2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961.\n11. Final assessment_u/s_115BBC-As against the firm belief till\n29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019,\nhas taxed the donations of Rs.1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations'\nu/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961.\nGround of Appeal No. 1 & 2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the ITA, 1961.\n11. Final assessment_u/s_115BBC-As against the firm belief till\n29/11/2019, the learned AO, vide 147 order dated 24/12/2019,\nhas taxed the donations of Rs.1.39 CR as 'Anonymous donations'\nu/s 115BBC of the ITA, 1961.\nGround of Appeal No. 1 & 2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

penalty\nus/270A of the Income Tax Act. In order to furnish reply to the above\npenalty notice we consulted the Senior Counsel and were advised to\nimmediately file the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The appeal\nwas accordingly filed on 17-02-2025. Thus the delay of 454 days has\nbeen caused in filing of the appeal

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

penalty\nus/270A of the Income Tax Act. In order to furnish reply to the above\npenalty notice we consulted the Senior Counsel and were advised to\nimmediately file the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The appeal\nwas accordingly filed on 17-02-2025. Thus the delay of 454 days has\nbeen caused in filing of the appeal

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal common order. 3. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal common order. 3. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal common order. 3. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal common order. 3. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee

ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,SANGAMNER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

penalty of Rs.47,94,700/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs.1,38,31,394/- being the amount deposited by the assessee in the account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. treating the same as 3 unexplained cash

SUMIT LALCHAND PAHUJA,KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(5), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sumit Lalchand Pahuja, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), House No.2719, Gandhinagar, Kolhapur. Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur- 416119. Pan : Bohpp0806D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Merit In Confirming Additions Of Rs.1,03,90,206/- When The Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Bad In Law. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Merit In Confirming Additions Of Rs.1,03,90,206/- When Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Based On Erroneous Facts & Without Proper Application Of Mind By Assessing Officer As The Assessee Did Not Held Any Account With M/S Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.

unexplained cash credit u/s 69A, when assessee did not hold any account alleged society. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271

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.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. 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

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

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.

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. 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