SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

unexplained money. ITA No. 2112/PUN/2025 is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 71,75,281/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We note

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

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was sent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of the bank account

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

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was sent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of the bank account

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

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was sent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of the bank account

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

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was sent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of the bank account

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

unexplained income u/s 69B of the Act. The assessee in its reply denied to have made any cash payment to Tapadiya family for purchase of land. The assessee also requested for cross-examination of Shri Ajay Tapadiya. When the summons were issued to Tapadiya u/s 131 of the Act, his AR submitted that Mr. Tapadiya was out of station

MR. PRASANNA KNTILAL MEHTA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

unexplained, therefore, the undersigned cannot presume that the appellant might be having cash savings of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellant has not given any other reason as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 5 ITA.Nos.660 & 661/PUN./2024 should not be levied in this case. It is also noted that no such explanation was furnished before the Assessing Officer

MR. PRASANNA KNTILAL MEHTA ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

unexplained, therefore, the undersigned cannot presume that the appellant might be having cash savings of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellant has not given any other reason as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 5 ITA.Nos.660 & 661/PUN./2024 should not be levied in this case. It is also noted that no such explanation was furnished before the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

unexplained money.\n5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was\nfiled before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC\nupheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-\n“4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was\nsent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of\nthe bank

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

unexplained money.\n5. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was\nfiled before Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA. In appeal, the CIT(A)/NFAC\nupheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-\n“4. During the course of appeal proceedings, hearing notice was\nsent on 07.10.2024 wherein the appellant was asked to submit copies of\nthe bank

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

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\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Penalty proceedings_u/s 271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nRs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through

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

Penalty proceedings_u/s 271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\n: Nil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1

AVINASH RAJENDRAKUMAR GHOLAP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(5), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.861/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Avinash Rajendrakumar Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Gholap, A/P Gholapwadi, Uddhat Taluka Indrapur, Pune- 413103. Pan : Abjpg2776M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. S. Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.04.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Passing Order Wherein Specific Request Of Adjournment Was Made By Assessee & Same Was Not Rejected By Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac).

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and section

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

u/s. 271(l)(c) may be declared null and void. 3 I.T.A.No. 1320/PUN./2023 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the addition made of Rs.1,42,65,106/- on account of alleged cash paid to Tapadiya group for purchase of land is not warranted at all and hence, no penalty can be levied

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 :

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