MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

unexplained\n(iii) Addition on account of interest expenditure\nAssessed Total Income\nRounding off u/s 288A\n7,62,67,463/-\n20,84,927/-\nRs.\n1,97,159/-\n10,78,45,691/-\nRs.10,78,45,690/-\n7.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against this order also.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) in the consolidated order dated

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

unexplained\n(iii) Addition on account of interest expenditure\nAssessed Total Income\nRounding off u/s 288A\n7,62,67,463/-\n20,84,927/-\nRs.\n1,97,159/-\n10,78,45,691/-\nRs.10,78,45,690/-\n7.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against this order also.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) in the consolidated order dated

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no addition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit. Therefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.” 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1, assessee has raised legal issue challenging

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no addition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit. Therefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.” 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1, assessee has raised legal issue challenging

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no addition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit. Therefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.” 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1, assessee has raised legal issue challenging

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. NARENDRA SAMPATLAL BAFNA, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

147 was not valid and the proper course of action that should have been taken by the Assessing Officer was u/s 153C as the provisions of section 153C of the Act are clearly applicable to the facts of the case. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC on the issue of validity of re-assessment proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

PRADEEP JANARDHAN SAKHARE,SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(A), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2509/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Janardhan Sakhare, Ito, Ward – 1(1), Ashay Regency, Flat No. 9, Aurangabad New Vishal Nagar, Chh. Sambhajinagar, Vs. Maharashtra-431001 Pan : Bobps8283M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual) Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of 18-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. For Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.3,17,830/-. Based On The Information Received From The Insight Portal Under „High Risk Criu/Vru Information‟, It Was Found That The Assessee Has Done Transaction In Crypto Currency Of Rs.38,54,500/-, The Source Of Which Requires Verification & Also There Were Unexplained Credit Entries Aggregating To Rs.40,44,044/-. As The Assessee Failed To Disclose The Above Transaction In The Itr Filed For The Ay 2018-19, The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Had Reason To Believe That The Above Income In Ay 2018-19 Has Escaped Assessment. Accordingly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Dated 07.04.2022. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 09.06.2023. Statutory Notice(S) U/S 142(1) & 144 Were Then Issued To The Assessee. As The Assessee Failed To File Any Compliance

147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act thereby making an addition of Rs.38,54,500/- on account of unexplained investments in crypto currency u/s 69B and credit entries of RS.40,44,044/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, to the returned income of Rs.3,17,830/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

reassessment can be issued u/s. 148. Even after the insertion of section 142A there is no amendment in the language of section 147. Therefore, he condition prescribed u/s. 147 for reopening of assessment still exists.” 18. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has validly found substance in the plea of the assessee that the Ld. AO cannot make

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

reassessment can be issued u/s. 148. Even after the insertion of section 142A there is no amendment in the language of section 147. Therefore, he condition prescribed u/s. 147 for reopening of assessment still exists.” 18. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has validly found substance in the plea of the assessee that the Ld. AO cannot make

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

unexplained investment made by\nassessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of\nshares.\n7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon\nexamining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these\nvery transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

reassessment proceedings when admittedly conditions specified u/s 147 of the ITA, 1961 for valid initiation were not satisfied in as much as all the facts were truly and fully disclosed in the original assessment proceedings and order was passed after due verification. As such, the addition was only the result of a change in opinion and the action

SUBHASH RUNWAL,BIBWEWADI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act & (2) ₹2Lakhs on account of discrepancies in money transactions with M/s BU Bhandari. Thus the former two addition u/s 69 and u/s 69A were made by invoking explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act. Therefore in adjudicating the legal issue under challenge, we have to deal with relevant fraction of provisions