ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN, NANDURBAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act cannot be attracted to the additional income declared during the course of search. 26. Even otherwise also the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has stated to have obtained loans from various persons as per the seized document. 27. We find

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act cannot be attracted to the additional income declared during the course of search. 26. Even otherwise also the assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has stated to have obtained loans from various persons as per the seized document. 27. We find

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

245/- have taken place. The assessment order has mentioned and placed response of the assessee in para 4 page 3. In para 5, AO has made an addition of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- as unexplained cash deposits. 6. As per the provisions of S. 69A it is the onus of the assessee to explain money deposited in his bank

M/S OM NAMAH SHIVAY TRADING COMPANY,,PARAOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 the recipient has to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. In the present case only identity has been proved as Mr Harish Kantilal Shah in a statement before the investigation wing Mumbai and on the overall perspective of evidence furnished by the appellant do not seem to have much creditworthiness. As regards as genuineness

SATARA EDUCATION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. DCIT (E) CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1054/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Satara Education Society, Vs. Dcit (E) Circle, Pune. 148, Mangalwar Peth, Satara City, Tetali B.O., Tetali, Satara- 415002. Pan : Aabts9280K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari : Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Laws & On Facts In Confirming The Appellant'S Income Assessed By The Learned Ao Amounting To Rs.11,68,77,245/- Instead Of Returned Income Of "Nil" As Declared By Appellant.

section 143(1)(a) of the ITA, 1961; thereby violating the principal of natural justice. As such, the appellant contends that the order passed u/s 143(1) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. The learned AO computed appellant's income of Rs.11,68,77,245

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

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 Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the correct amount is Rs.22.99 crore and the Revenue could not bring any evidence disproving the correct figure given by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. We find that out of total amount of Rs.22.99 crore an amount of Rs.21.32 crore relates to the project Cerebrum, the details

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 Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the correct amount is Rs.22.99 crore and the Revenue could not bring any evidence disproving the correct figure given by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. We find that out of total amount of Rs.22.99 crore an amount of Rs.21.32 crore relates to the project Cerebrum, the details

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

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

68 of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the correct amount is Rs.22.99 crore and the Revenue could not bring any evidence disproving the correct figure given by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. We find that out of total amount of Rs.22.99 crore an amount of Rs.21.32 crore relates to the project Cerebrum, the details

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. BEEKAY ENTERPRISES,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the legal ground taken in the assessee’s cross objection which goes to the root of the matter is allowed and the ground on merits therefore, becomes academic in nature

68 & 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4) The Ld. CIT(A)-7, Pune, ought to have dismissed the appeal of the assessee by recognizing the principle that if any expenditure (including purchases) is proved to be bogus under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 69C does not permit allowing partial expenditure. 5) Whether

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. VASTUSHODH REALTY, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.254/Pun/2024 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 68 on the aggregate amounts introduced in the only two partners' capital account as unexplained for the reason the credit worthiness of the partners was not satisfactorily explained. The AO added the entire credits without considering even the disallowances for the reason that the appellant did not furnish individual capital account but only consolidated account. During appeal also

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

245 (Mumbai-Trib.). It is also a case of unregistered trust u/s.12A/12AA of the Act. The question before the when the Trust is not registered under the income-tax provisions. The Tribunal elaborated on various decisions and concluded by stating that the Corpus Donations are not to be taxed even if the Trust is not registered u/s.12A/12AA

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

245 to 247/PUN/2016 relate to non-abated assessments whereas ITA Nos. 248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

245 to 247/PUN/2016 relate to non-abated assessments whereas ITA Nos. 248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

245 to 247/PUN/2016 relate to non-abated assessments whereas ITA Nos. 248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

245 to 247/PUN/2016 relate to non-abated assessments whereas ITA Nos. 248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

245 to 247/PUN/2016 relate to non-abated assessments whereas ITA Nos. 248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A of the Act is not correct. The Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A of the Act is not correct. The Assessing Officer