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

3 ITA No.1351/PUN/2023, AY 2017-18 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in terms of CBDT Circular No. F.No. 225/363/2017-ITA-II dated 26.07.2019. In para 4 of the assessment order, the Ld. AO noted that in response to the notice issued, the assessee submitted relevant documents which were examined and placed on record. The Ld. AO noted inter-alia that

M/S. K.G.AGRO PROCESSOR PVT.LTD,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DHULE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662 & 663 /Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We note at the outset that the assessee’s identical sole grievance raised in both these cases challenges the learned lower authorities action adding the alleged undisclosed toll receipts of Rs.6,05,47,016/- and Rs.5

M/S. K.G.AGRO PROCESSOR PVT.LTD,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DHULE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662 & 663 /Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We note at the outset that the assessee’s identical sole grievance raised in both these cases challenges the learned lower authorities action adding the alleged undisclosed toll receipts of Rs.6,05,47,016/- and Rs.5

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

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

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

68,72,632 to the taxable income of the Appellant including an adjustment of INR 2,10,10,000/- on account of transfer pricing matters and INR 58,62,632/- on account of corporate tax matters. 4 2. The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Board) approval for transferring

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

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin - Trib.)]- Para 7.2 / 7.3 (ii) Prem Prakash Mandal Sewa Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) - [(2021) 132 taxmann.com 269 (Raipur - Trib.)] (iii) Dera Baba Bhai Gurdas Ji Udasin Trust (Regd) (Mansa) v. ITO [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 278 (Amritsar - Trib.)] (iv) Alpha Educational Trust v. DCIT (E) [(2023) 150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.)] II. Proposition 2 : Where an application

SRL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,JALNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

68,600/- in which payments were made in cash more than Rs.10,000/- in each transaction. Similarly, ld.Pr.CIT studied the Return of Income for A.Y.2019-20 and A.Y.2018-19 and then arrived at a prima-facie opinion that WDV of the Asset was incorrectly mentioned. 4.3.1 Therefore, the pleading of the ld.AR that the Pr.CIT has merely relied on the Proposal submitted

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

68 33,85,80,176 14 9,02,79,805 8 4,67,15,104 7. Referring to the above, he submitted that in the subsequent submissions the assessee relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction vs. DCIT reported in 38 DTR 19 has explained to the Assessing Officer that

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

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 Rs. 50,75,000/- in the order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts and circumstances. The Assessing Officer passed the order under section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 50,75,000/- though the loans are genuine and assesse is having all the documentary evidences

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. R.J. BIOTECH LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

144 and argued that all the amounts payable for use of land, service charges and reimbursement expenses to farmers and the final settlement of produce borne by the farmers. 16. Referring to decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Namdhari Seeds (P) Ltd. (supra), he submits that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. R.J. BIOTECH LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

144 and argued that all the amounts payable for use of land, service charges and reimbursement expenses to farmers and the final settlement of produce borne by the farmers. 16. Referring to decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Namdhari Seeds (P) Ltd. (supra), he submits that the assessee

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D of the Act has to be granted for \"each\n assessment year\" referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the\nAct. It is beneficial to refer to the decision

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

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

144-\nBA.\"\n\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D of the Act has to be granted for \"each\n assessment year\" referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the\nAct. It is beneficial to refer