DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

68,24, 174 at the special rate under section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore

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 of the I.T. Act is not understandable. Thus, the Approving Authority without application of mind and in a most mechanical and technical manner granted approval under section 153D even without reference to any reason in the Order under section 153D of the I.T. Act. We, even, otherwise failed to understand that in search cases how an approval

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

section 68. 4.3 Thus, it was found that the FAO has failed to examine the huge loans shown to have been advanced by the lenders, namely, Sh. Krishant Eknath Chavan of Rs.97,61,000/-, Sh Amrut Kakaso Kumbhar of Rs.98,39,955/, Sh. Vijay Raghunath Patil of Rs.3,00,00,000/-, Sh. Dadaraje Anandrao Desal of Rs.5

GRUHA NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CRICLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

144B of the Act on 23.08.2021 based on the details submitted by the assessee and material available on record by making the following additions to the Nil income returned by the assessee. (i) Addition of Rs.8,98,64,724/- of unsecured loans accepted by the assessee during the AY 2018-19 on account of inadequate proof to establish identity, genuineness

RAHUL NEMGONDA PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 144B of the Act vide his\norder dated 26.09.2021 treating the cash deposit of Rs.41,07,000/- as\nunexplained cash credit u/s 68

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1 , JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

sections": [ "147", "148", "144B", "250", "68", "153C" ], "issues": "Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid when

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.2225/PUN/2025 [A] ―1. The reopening of assessment for Assessment Year 2016-17, alleging escapement of income of 43,22,430/-, is erroneous and unsustainable. The impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27th August

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

68 of the Act as discussed in Para 23 above Total income determined u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Rs.25,43,82,529/- the Act. 3 3. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee, wherein he deleted the addition of Rs.13,12,365/- and sustained the remaining additions. 4. Aggrieved with such order

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

144B of the Act." The Scheme is categoric as stated aforesaid that the notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued through automated allocation and in a faceless manner. The Scheme clearly provides that the notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be issued by NFAC and not the JAO. Further, unlike

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

144B of the Act." The Scheme is categoric as stated aforesaid that the notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued through automated allocation and in a faceless manner. The Scheme clearly provides that the notice under Section 148 of the Act is required to be issued by NFAC and not the JAO. Further, unlike

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

68 and 69A of the IT Act. The deeming provisions of the law are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case whereby the AO is justified to make an addition to the total income of the amount of cash deposits, as the same was not explained by the appellant. The identity, creditworthiness of the persons giving

SHREESOMNIDHI INFRASOLUTIONS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.2,50,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained credits in respect of the share capital and share premium received from SEZ Biotech Services Pvt. Ltd. for the reason that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the said shareholder and genuineness of the transaction undertaken

SHRI VENKATESHWARA PANMASALA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Venkateshwara Panmasala Industries Pvt Ltd, 335, Sangli Kolhapur Byepass Road, Dharangutti Via Jaysingpur – 416 203. Pan: Aaccs5553P. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolhapur . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which Impugns First Appellate Order Dt. 06/03/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/ Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Emerged In Relation To & Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 24/11/2023 Passed By Ld. Assessment Unit, Nfac [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

68 of the Act treating it as an unexplained cash credit fit for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The Ld. AO made addition of entire amount of unsecured loan in his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 68 of the IT Act.” 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing the legal issues raised in the modified grounds of appeal filed in both the appeals for the years under consideration. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1, 2 & 4 are dismissed as not pressed. 4 ITA.Nos.1415 & 1416/PUN./2024 (Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji

SWAMINI MAHILA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2533/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Swamini Mahila Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha S. Ward-12(3), Pune. Maryadit, Survey No.272, Sainagar Gourav Bunglow, Lohagaon, Near Uttareshwar Mandir, Pune – 411047. Pan: Aakas1168G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16, Dated 19.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144B Of The

144B of the ITA No.2533/PUN/2025 [A] Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 01.03.2024. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “General ground 1. The Ld. AO erred in assessing the total income at Rs 77,91,516 as against the returned income filed in response to notice U/s 148 of Rs. NIL. Assessment is invalid 2. The impugned assessment order

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

144B of the Act. 2. When the appeal called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing. A perusal of the record indicates that in the past assessee had failed to appear on the following dates of hearing viz.19.09.2024, 14.11.2024, 11.03.2025, 16.04.2025 and 07.05.2024. From the above details of notices of hearing which have

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

144B of the Act dtd. 20.04.2021, the Assessing Officer has made his intentions clear about the impugned addition being made on account of non substantiation by the assessee of the identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of the creditors in its books of accounts. 3. On the facts and the circumstances and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred on the facts

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in pursuance of the directions dated 25 January 2022(received on 25 January 2022) issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Hon'ble DRP') on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other: On the facts