SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 by issue of notice dated 31.03.2017 u/s 148 of the Act based on the information received by him from the search action u/s 132 of the Act carried out on Mr. Anand Sharma and group wherein he had admitted that various concerns operated by him were indulged in providing bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. PAN INTERNATIONAL, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2020 & Co No. 23/Pun/2022 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Pan International, 347, Afl House, Off Dhole Patil Rd, Behind Hotel Meru, Pune – 411 001 . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pan: Aabfp4234F & Cross Objector द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Revenue Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Quashing The Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune[For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2008-09 On Technical-Cum-Legal Ground.

TDS”] from the expense claimed. In response thereto the assessee filed a written its submission to treat revised ITR filed on 06/03/2009 as ITR in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Considering the same the Ld. AO made an addition of ₹69,60,093/- by disallowing certain expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction

SANTOSH SHANKAR GUJAR,LAXMI NAGAR, THERGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

TDS was deducted, however no return was furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147

SANTOSH SHANKAR GUJAR,NEAR VITTHAL RUKMINI MANDIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

TDS was deducted, however no return was furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147

RATAN KISAN BORADE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2015-16, on the basis of unverified information, thereby alleging that escaped income is beyond Rs. 50,00,000. Since the belief is based on unverified information, entire proceedings are bad in law and deserves to be struck down, facts also get support from the Assessment order wherein actual addition is less than Rs.50

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS of Rs 80,000/- appeared in 26AS statement of appellant for the year. The AO noticed that no return of income has been filed by appellant for the year despite having Income from capital gain on sale of immovable property. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148. In response notice u/s 148, the appellant filed ROI with

SUNAND CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 has disallowed the interest expenditure on account of non deduction of TDS on such interest, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. So far as the various other planks of arguments

SUNANDA CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 has disallowed the interest expenditure on account of non deduction of TDS on such interest, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. So far as the various other planks of arguments

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

reassessment u/s 147. The learned CITA failed to consider the submissions made against the aforesaid addition and failed to appreciate that- 4.1 The appellant had accumulated and capitalised the expenses incurred on tooling and dies at the behest and on behalf of the Customers of Rs.6,00,43,068/- under Capital Work in Progress (CWIP) in the General Ledger

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

reassessment u/s 147. The learned CITA failed to consider the submissions made against the aforesaid addition and failed to appreciate that- 4.1 The appellant had accumulated and capitalised the expenses incurred on tooling and dies at the behest and on behalf of the Customers of Rs.6,00,43,068/- under Capital Work in Progress (CWIP) in the General Ledger

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.

147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining total income at Rs.2,40,17,033/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.2,40,17,033/- as 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

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.

147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining total income at Rs.2,40,17,033/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.2,40,17,033/- as 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

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147, 148 and 148A of the Act, should be done in a faceless manner.\n4. During the course of assessment, the Ld. A. O. accepted the fact that the sale transaction was not of Rs.3,60,00,000/- as reported by the Insight Portal, but of Rs.1,20,00,000/- as per the document provided

DREAMS BELLE VUE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2 (1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS amounting to Rs.3,42,744\nought to be granted either to the Appellant AOP or, in the alternative,\nto the respective members who have duly offered the corresponding\nincome in their individual returns of income.\n4.\nThe Appellant craves to add/modify/amend/delete all / any of\ngrounds of appeal.\"\n4.\nBriefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an Association

DREAMS BELLE VUE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-2(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS amounting to Rs.3,42,744\nought to be granted either to the Appellant AOP or, in the alternative,\nto the respective members who have duly offered the corresponding\nincome in their individual returns of income.\n4.\nThe Appellant craves to add/modify/amend/delete_all / any of\ngrounds of appeal.\"\n4.\nBriefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an Association

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

147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has not\nobtained

BHASKAR DANVE PATIL ,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with the directions given above

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. (pages 3 to 7 of the paper book refers). 14 ITA No.285/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 7. The Ld. DR strongly supported the order of Ld. AO/CIT(A). He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in retaining the 10% disallowance of Rs.96,10,693/- on account of sub-contract

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred