INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

119. The Circular of\nOctober 9, 1984, therefore, provides a test for recognising whether a claim\nfor interest can be treated as a doubtful claim unlikely to be recovered or\nnot. The test provided by the said circular is to see whether, at the end of\nthree years, the amount of interest has, in fact, been recovered by the\nbank

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

119 to ensure a uniform and proper\nadministration and application of the Income-tax Act.\"\n10. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in a case of\nMercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 84/153 Taxman 97 (SC), where\nsimilar question was raised before the apex court. The question was\nwhether the assessee is liable

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 has accepted the same in a mechanical manner. 22. We find the provisions of section 263 of the Act read as under: ―263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

119. The Circular of\nOctober 9, 1984, therefore, provides a test for recognising whether a claim\nfor interest can be treated as a doubtful claim unlikely to be recovered or\nnot. The test provided by the said circular is to see whether, at the end of\nthree years, the amount of interest has, in fact, been recovered by the\nbank

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Act. He argued since the approval was granted for addition u/s. 69C of the Act and the provisions u/s. 115BBE are applicable with a charging rate at 60%, there is no discrepancy or error in the tax rate applied by the AO, it is in compliance with the provisions

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

119/- as per the provisions of section 68\nof the Act. However, the same was not done and the AO failed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. MARSH FINCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

section 68.” I find that the ADIT had made inquiries by issuing notices u/s 133(6) dt. 31-10- 2014 whereby all the 3 companies had furnished their replies confirming having acquired the shares. In support thereof they filed their balance sheet, bank statement highlighting the details of amount paid and the share allotment advise received by them. Even

YASHWANT NAMDEV PAWAR,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1739 To 1742/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sangli. At Post Navraswad Karnal, Karlal Dist Sangli, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Bkepp5877P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 16.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1739/Pun/2025 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, on the basis of information gathered during the search conducted on 26-05-2017, therefore the action is illegal as the proceedings ought to have been initiated u/s 153C, therefore consequential order passed is bad in law and deserves to be struck down. 1.1) There was search action on M/s Sri Renukamata

YASHWANT NAMDEV PAWAR,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1739 To 1742/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sangli. At Post Navraswad Karnal, Karlal Dist Sangli, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Bkepp5877P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 16.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1739/Pun/2025 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, on the basis of information gathered during the search conducted on 26-05-2017, therefore the action is illegal as the proceedings ought to have been initiated u/s 153C, therefore consequential order passed is bad in law and deserves to be struck down. 1.1) There was search action on M/s Sri Renukamata

YASHWANT NAMDEV PAWAR,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1739 To 1742/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sangli. At Post Navraswad Karnal, Karlal Dist Sangli, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Bkepp5877P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 16.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1739/Pun/2025 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, on the basis of information gathered during the search conducted on 26-05-2017, therefore the action is illegal as the proceedings ought to have been initiated u/s 153C, therefore consequential order passed is bad in law and deserves to be struck down. 1.1) There was search action on M/s Sri Renukamata

YASHWANT NAMDEV PAWAR,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1739 To 1742/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Yashwant Namdev Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sangli. At Post Navraswad Karnal, Karlal Dist Sangli, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Bkepp5877P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 16.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1739/Pun/2025 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, on the basis of information gathered during the search conducted on 26-05-2017, therefore the action is illegal as the proceedings ought to have been initiated u/s 153C, therefore consequential order passed is bad in law and deserves to be struck down. 1.1) There was search action on M/s Sri Renukamata

MOHAMMAD OSMAN MOHAMMAF HAROONMOTIWALA,AURANGANBAD vs. PCIT- NASHIK 1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68/ 69 etc. 13.1 Significantly, the PCIT, while seeking to set aside the action of AO and remitting the matter back for further enquiries, did not bring any definite material to show any incorrect assumption of such facts on this score. Besides, no observations are found in the impugned revisional order suggesting a course to be adopted towards manner

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

section 68 adopted by the AO, which was\nordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of\nsection 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted\non 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting\napproach, while the AO has also touched upon this issue

SPAN OVERSEAS P LTD,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.409/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Span Overseas Private Limited, The Principal Office No.5, Amar Avinash Vs Commissioner Of Income Corporate City 11, Bund Garden Tax-3, Pune. Road, Pune – 411006. Pan: Aabcs 4214 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 Dated 30.03.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 13.11.2019 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Span Overseas Private Limited ('The Appellant') Objects To The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Dated March 30, 2022 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pune - 3 ('Pr. Cit) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Amongst Other Grounds: Span Overseas P. Ltd.,[A]

68 to 73 of the paper book. The Ld.AR invited our attention to page 77 to 83 of the paper book. The Ld.AR explained that assessee had filed copy of the Challan at page 79 of Paper book to explain the payment made. At page 78 of the paper book was a table showing amounts paid and the year under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. BEEKAY ENTERPRISES,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the legal ground taken in the assessee’s cross objection which goes to the root of the matter is allowed and the ground on merits therefore, becomes academic in nature

68 & 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4) The Ld. CIT(A)-7, Pune, ought to have dismissed the appeal of the assessee by recognizing the principle that if any expenditure (including purchases) is proved to be bogus under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 69C does not permit allowing partial expenditure. 5) Whether

KESRIMAL OSWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

68 of the Act for unexplained cash credit received from Shri Shrikant Valekar. Income assessed at Rs.26,33,355/-. Though the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but again could not succeed as the assessee could not place any explanation or evidence. Finding of ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order reads as under : “5.0 Findings and Reasons 5.1 I have

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68,22,860 Rs. 25.61.51.210) thereby assessing total income at Rs.25.68,22.860/- and computed balance tax liability at Rs.2,73,95,728/- instead of refund declared in return of income of Rs.31.40,690/-.” 2.1 Aggrieved by the order u/sec.143(1) of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] 2.2 Aggrieved

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), PUNE vs. SURESH KUMAR LAKHOTIA , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's contention that the additional capital introduced