M/S MAULI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA LIMITED,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

144 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the cash deposits made by the assessee society during the demonetization period have been collectively treated as unexplained money by the Ld. AO for the reason that the assessee is not an authorized person to collect

ASHOK HIRACHAND SHAH,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2, PANVEL

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.812/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Hirachand Shah, Assessing Officer, Plot No. 4, Mangal Bunglow, Ward – 2, Panvel Road No. 5, Sector No. 19, Vs. New Panvel, Tal.-Panvel-410206 Pan : Acdps4800M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of 17-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Denial Of Natural Justice & Proper Opportunity The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Appellant Was Denied Proper Opportunity & Natural Justice During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Called For Information At The Far End Of The Assessment Proceedings On 19/11/2018 & Despite The Appellant'S Authorized Representative Submitting The Details On 19/12/2018, The Ao Failed To Discuss Or Consider The Same. The Matter Ought To Have Been Remanded Back For Fresh Adjudication To Allow Proper Analysis Of The Transactions. 2. Addition Without Specifying The Section The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- Made By The Ao Without Specifying The Section Under Which The Addition Was Made. The Non-Mention Of The Specific Section Renders The Assessment Order Bad In Law, As It Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice & Transparency In Taxation. 3. Failure To Discharge Onus Under Section 69A

144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the above additions made by the Ld. AO. There was non-compliance by the assessee to the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. On merits, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered – • Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings. • Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

NALINI B PAWAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 914/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nalini Balasaheb Pawar, 32/1/1, Shree Mangal Society, Opp. Post Office, Dhankawadi, Pune – 411043 Pan: Aiupp7152Q . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2) Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2016-17 Is Assailed Against First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Dt. 20/06/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 30/12/2018 Passed U/S 144 By The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Pune [For Short ‘Ao’]

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 50,75,000/- in the order passed under section 144

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. DHULE ZILHA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DHULE, DHULE

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

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

144 of the Act on 26.09.2022 determining the total income at Rs.30,36,14,249/- by making an addition of Rs.29,55,34,049/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.80,80,200/-, to the Nil income returned

ANNASAHEB RAMESH CHHAGANLAL AJMERA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD.,DHULE vs. ACIT CIRCLE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

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

144 read with section 147 of the Act vide his order dated 02.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.1,04,00,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee. 4. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions along with supporting documentary evidences in support of its contention that the source of cash deposits

SHRI PADMAKAR SOPAN KANDARFALE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was not justified in making addition of Rs.10,42,500/- u/s 69A of the Act though in the order itself the AO has observed that out of Rs.10,42,500/- subjected to addition the deposit of Rs.7,72,500/- the balance was explained either treated as ‘contra’ or ‘agricultural income

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 68 doesn't arise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact of incorrect levy of interest 234B of the Act on the entire assessed income while calculating demand. 5. The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

144 of the Act and framed best judgment assessment making addition of Rs.3,12,09,030/-. Against the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s.144 dated 28.03.2023, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 28.04.2023. During the course of appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A) assessee gave an application for withdrawal of the appeal stating that the assessee wants to apply to ld. PCIT

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

THE ITO, WARD-8(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SILICON SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3017/Ahd/2014 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

68 unexplained share capital of Rs.1,56,35,000/-, share application money of Rs.25,00,000/- and share premium of Rs.2,22,65,000/-; respectively. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the Assessing officer had framed his section 144

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

68 of the Act. 1) Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 2) CIT vs. Rathi Finlease Ltd. (Madhya Pradesh HC) 3) Par Excellence Leasing and Financial Services (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (Delhi ITAT) 4) J.J. Development (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, Kolkata 5) Advance Power Infra Tech Ltd. vs DCIT (Kolkata ITAT) 6) CIT vs. Korlay trading co. Ltd. (Calcutta

SHIVAM MULTISPECIALITY AND ACCIDENT CARE CENTRE PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.696/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shivam Multispecialty & Accident Care Income Tax Officer, Centre Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 6(1), Pune Opp. Manali Resort, Near Dsk Dream City, Vs. Next To Loni Kalbhor Toll Naka, Pune-Solapur Mumbai Bypass Road, Fursungi, Pune-412308, Maharashtra Pan : Aapcs5482A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Dandgaval Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

144 of the Act. The Ld. AO noted that during the year the assessee received share capital of Rs.1,55,23,742/-, the source of which remained unexplained by the assessee. He therefore added the said receipt 2 ITA No.696/PUN/2025, AY 2017-18 of 1,55,23,742/- to the income of Rs. 13,220 returned by the assessee

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

144 of the Act on 30.11.2019 assessing the income at Rs.1,85,47,261/- by recording his findings and observations in respect of various additions made by him as under : “03. (a) On Perusal of Profit & Loss account is noted that the assessee nas claimed purchases to the extent of Rs.1,31,12 821/- As the assessee failed to furnish

SANGEETA ARUN DESHMUKH,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, SATARA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.172/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 A.Y. : 2014-15 Sangeeta Arun Deshmukh 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s 10 substantive grounds challenge correctness of both the lower authorities action adding section 69 unexplained investments and section 68

SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KHARKHANA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in its bank account with Union Bank of India received by the assessee from the society, named Dyaneshwari Multi Urban Co-operative Society. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by initiating reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act vide notice dated 19.07.2022. Accordingly, statutory notice(s) were

DEELIP V.KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -(1),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deelip Vijaykumar Kotecha, The Acit, Cc-(1), 1, Pradhan Apartment, Pratap Vs Nashik. Nagar, Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Abcpk 8441 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai –Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The A.Y. 2010-11 Dated 27.04.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.09.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ [A] Grounds Of Appeal 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Without Having Jurisdiction Because, No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant U/S 127 & Also Disregarding The Objections Raised U/S 292Bb In This Regard.

144 r.w.s 153A of the Act was passed on 30.03.2014. The AO made additions under section 68 & 69A of the Act. The Assessing