ATUL BHANUDAS SHINDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.970/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Atul Bhanudas Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, Shetphal Haveli, Dhenu Nagar, S Ward-14(5), Pune. Bawada S.O, Shetphal Haveli, Pune – 413103. Maharashtra. Pan: Ectps5299N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Form No.36 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.2017-18 Dated 14.02.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 20.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

68 cannot be made. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in the given case, pursuant to Ashish Agrawal Notice u/s 148A (b) not issued. Which make entire assessment proceedings bad in law. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (A) erred in initiating entire Assessment Proceeding based

M/S. SOFT ZONE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE5, PUNE, PUINE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.724/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Soft Zone, V The Dcit, 84 Laxmi Road, Opp.Ganesh S. Circle-5, Pune. Peth Police Station, Ganesh Peth, Pune – 411003. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Vindo Pawar – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 16.01.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Re-Opening Of The Assessment In This Case Is Invalid & Bad In Law. The Notice U/S 148 & Consequentially, The Impugned Re-

68 of the Income Tax Act. The Action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act to charge the higher rate of tax in respect of the amount of Rs.1,08,71,550/- may be vacated/cancelled. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend/modify or delete

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

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

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

148A(d) and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 07.04.2022. The assessee in response to the same filed the return of income u/s 148 declaring total income of Rs.93,17,87,280/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2024 determining the total income of Rs.94,40,61,296/- wherein

SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 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.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

148A(d) and notice u/s 148 inasmuch as there is no independent verification of the information with facts already available on record to justify the formation of satisfaction that there is income suggesting escapement of income and hence, the entire proceedings are based on mechanical reproduction of information without due inquiry or examination of the facts specific to the Appellant

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

148A, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of UOI vs Ashish Agarwal. 6. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the issue of the notice u/s 148, by the Assessing Officer, as the time limit prescribed u/s. 149 for issue of notice for income escaping below Rupees Fifty Lakhs, is only three years. 7. The Appellate Commissioner

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

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

sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1)", "36(1)(iii)", "32", "68", "80IA", "41(1)", "139", "170A", "148", "148A", "149", "151" ], "issues

MANISH JASHWANTRAI BHUTA,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta Ito, Ward 1(1), Nashik Flat No.8, Pooja Apartment, Vs. Shivam Nagar, Hirawadi, Panchavati, Nashik – 422003 Pan: Aghpb1619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish M. Mehta Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

148A(d) of the IT Act and accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 19.07.2022. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 07.09.2022 declaring total income of Rs.14,44,680/-. The Assessing Officer, rejecting the various explanations given by the assesse regarding the source of cash deposit of Rs.5

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of advances received from the customers which were shown as liabilities. He submitted that though the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the correct amount of advances received is Rs.22.99 crore, however, he held that the assessee should have offered the said amount as sales in the year under consideration and there

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of advances received from the customers which were shown as liabilities. He submitted that though the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the correct amount of advances received is Rs.22.99 crore, however, he held that the assessee should have offered the said amount as sales in the year under consideration and there

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].

section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the action of the tax authorities, with the following grounds the assessee appellant came in present appeal; 1. “ The order passed by the Assessing Officer on 29-03-2023 u/s 148A

ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68. 8] Without prejudice to the above grounds, it is prayed that if at all, any addition u/s.68, is to be sustained, then the A.O. may be directed to tax only peak cash deposits made during the year after allowing benefit of cash withdrawals made from the same account and the entire cash deposits may not be taxed as income

ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68. 8] Without prejudice to the above grounds, it is prayed that if at all, any addition u/s.68, is to be sustained, then the A.O. may be directed to tax only peak cash deposits made during the year after allowing benefit of cash withdrawals made from the same account and the entire cash deposits may not be taxed as income

OMKAR RAMCHANDRA VELHAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

68. The\nappellant states that the money received from Shri. Nikhil Vijay Bakare\nas unsecured loan was repaid and Affidavit regarding the same was\nsubmitted by the appellant. Therefore, the addition may be deleted.\n4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, after, modify or delete\nthe above grounds of appeal or to add a new ground of appeal

DEVRAJ VISHWASRAO JADHAV,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / .Ita No.2213/Pun/2024 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Devraj Vishwasrao Ito, Ward-3, Satara Jadhav, R. No. 06, S. No. 24, Vs. Dreams Rhythm, Opposite Talathi Office, Bavdhan, Pune-411021 Maharashtra Pan-Aebpj6968F अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Dr. Prayag Jha Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08-09-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.09.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 Of The Act Dated 14.03.2023. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Arguments & Submissions Made By The Assessee & Dismissing All The Grounds Taken In Appeal. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Assessing Officer Had Not Served On The Assessee The Statutory Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The It Act & Therefore, The Impugned Order Was Passed Without Jurisdiction.

section 68 of the IT Act. 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amount of Rs.36,35,000/- was received as consideration on sale of agricultural land and was exempt from Income Tax. 7. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not directing the Ld AO to allow set off for Short Term Capital Loss

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

KAI FAKIRA JAIRAM PATIL SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT SHAHADA,NANDURBAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

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

148A of the IT Act. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, vide order dated 30.05.2023 the reassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income at Rs.3,78,12,419/- as against the Nil income returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.3

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

68,835/- on 29.01.2015 and thereafter, sold all the units on 29.01.2015 for a consideration of Rs.8,99,93,198/- and the loss of Rs.1,00,06,802/- was claimed as the business loss by the assessee. 18. We find an identical issue had come up before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Karan Maheshwari