ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

68, read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share application money) - Assessment ycar 2000-10 - During relevant year, assessee company had increased its share capital by issuing 7.93 lakh shares of Rs.10 each at a premium of Rs.390 - assessee originally filed a return showing a gross total income of Rs.24, 658 however, thereafter wrote

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act should have been applied in this regard and the decision of the Ld. AO to not draw any adverse inference about the substantive loan of Rs.3,37,65,561/- was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3.5 The assessee filed her detailed reply to the show cause notice issued

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

167 (Guj) that liability shown in the balance sheet is a clear case of acknowledging the liability and such liability cannot be treated to have ceased so as to attract section 41(1). That being so, where is the question of holding the said liabilities as ceased to exist, more so when appellant itself is acknowledging the liabilities

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

68 of the Act i.e. the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transaction. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the various findings given by the Assessing Officer deleted the addition, which is not correct. 24. So far as the validity of re-assessment proceedings is concerned, he submitted that the Assessing Officer

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

SHERGIL HARJIT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shergil Harjit, 6, Penton Road, Opp. Moti Buag, Officer’S Enclave, Ahmednagar Camp, Ahmednagar- 414002. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Evhps1971N बनाम / V/S. Pr. Cit-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Subhakant Sahu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Pune Dated 17.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record :- “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit – Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 As The Original Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Was Passed After Full Satisfaction Of The Ld. Assessing Officer. Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit, Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 Ex- Parte Inspite Of Duly Filed Submissions By The Assessee Before Time. Thus, The Order Passed Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee May Please Be Treated As Bad In Law & Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

section 115BBE(1) of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it was scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) as conducted by the Assessing Officer wherein, all the details of cash deposit and business turnover has been filed before the Assessing Officer. It has been also explained before the Assessing Officer that

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

section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of about 397 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the said delay and dismissed the appeal observing that the reasons cited by the assessee

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

M/S. KASTURI RASHI DEVELOPERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

167 DTR 290 (Bom.). 6. In my considered opinion, the contention of the ld. AR does not hold water because the AO got tangible material in the shape of information from DGIT (Inv.), Pune giving list of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries, which unmistakably included the assessee’s name with its address and also that of M/s. Mohit International

NAVINCHANDRA C. NATHANI,,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,492/- (Rs.61,69,167 in asst year 2010-11 and Rs.56,99,325/- in asst year 2012-13) has been brought to tax. Thus there has been a double assessment of the income to the extent of Rs.50,18,492/-. As I have dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed the assessment in 2010-11, the relief on account

NAVINCHANDRA C. NATHANI,,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,492/- (Rs.61,69,167 in asst year 2010-11 and Rs.56,99,325/- in asst year 2012-13) has been brought to tax. Thus there has been a double assessment of the income to the extent of Rs.50,18,492/-. As I have dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed the assessment in 2010-11, the relief on account

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

68 of the Act is hereby deleted and Ground no. 3 and 4 raised on\nthe issue are allowed.\n10.\nAggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in\nappeal by raising the following grounds:\n1.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in allowing