SHRI DEVENDRA SWARUPCHAND SHINGAVI,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / It(Ss) No. 018 To 021 & Ita No. 1039-1040/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi 161/162, Dwarika Apts,, Mukund Nagar, Pune-411037, Pan: Aulps9948J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

68 of the Act and undisclosed rental income etc. 2.2 Further pursuant to aforestated search action, the case of the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were reopened and similar additions were also made in the respective assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals against each of the aforestated

SHRI DEVENDRA SWARUPCHAND SHINGAVI,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / It(Ss) No. 018 To 021 & Ita No. 1039-1040/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi 161/162, Dwarika Apts,, Mukund Nagar, Pune-411037, Pan: Aulps9948J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

68 of the Act and undisclosed rental income etc. 2.2 Further pursuant to aforestated search action, the case of the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were reopened and similar additions were also made in the respective assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved assessee filed separate appeals against each of the aforestated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) ,PUNE, SWARGATE vs. GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1118/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 250 of the Act. In the present case the Ld. CIT(A) culminated the appellate proceedings merely by placing reliance on earlier years orders of this Tribunal. The impugned adjudication neither identified issue under challenge nor provided any independent findings as to whether any advisory services were actually received by the assessee against which payment of consideration claimed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

DILIP JUHARMAN JAIN ,RAIGAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1242/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dilip Juharmal Jain, The Acit, Bazarpeth, Mirchi Galli, At & V Circle Panvel. Post Pen Tal Pen Dist, S Raigad – 402107. Pan: Aappj5566P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

250 of the Act dated 07.11.2023 emanating from the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 05.11.2018 . The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : “1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.39,67,841/- made by the ld AO by holding the cash on hand

SHRI PARSHWANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTH,SATARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore on this ground itself the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is deserved to be set-aside/quashed. Therefore, as raised in ground Non, the appellant humbly prays 13 before the Hon’ble Bench to quash/set-aside the said appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5.1 In regard to addition

M/S. MAYFAIR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2233/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mayfair Builders & Vs Ito, Ward Developers, 2(3), Pune 1027, New Nana Peth, Pune-411001 Maharashtra Pan-Aacfm1312R Appellant Respondent

6. Mahmood Musavi 3,30,000/- Total 24,50,250/- 7. From perusal of section 68 of the Act, I find

SAHIL ENTERPRISES,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

68 of the Act being the cash in hand generated out of business activity. 2.1 Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the CIT(A) / NFAC in the ex-parte order passed by him sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE vs. DIPTI NARENDRA LULLA, PUNE

sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "115BBE", "271AAC", "69", "270A", "131", "46A", "250(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred

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

250. Thus, the CITIA) is not justified in arbitrarily upholding the addition so made by Ld. AO. Accordingly, it be kindly held that the addition so upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of Natural Justice. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) upholding the additions made in Assessment Proceeding be kindly quashed and appellant be granted just

RESHMA DEVENDRA SHINGAVI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 842/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Reshma Devendra Shingavi, 161/162, Dwarika Apt, Mukund Nagar, Pune. Pan: Bolps7850G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

68 of the Act. Whereas, in an appeal, the Ld. NFAC confirmed ex-parte for non-prosecution in-spite assessee was served with multiple notices. 5. We are heedful to the restriction placed in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act which obligates the Ld. FAA to adjudicate the issue either by confirming

SHREE VISHAL JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 9 PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

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.1975/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Vishal Jewellers, Dcit, Circle-9, Pune Kohinoor Arcade, Nigdi, Pune-411044 Vs. Pan : Achfs8052R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sushant Padhye Department By : Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of 28-11-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Error In Additions Of Rs.6,25,94,300/- In Respect Of Provision Of Section 68 Of The Act. The Ao Erred In Appreciating The Complexity Of Assessee'S Business & Made Addition Based On Conjecture Rather Than Evidence. Addition Was Made Merely By Treating Excess Balance Of Cash As Unexplained Credits Thereby Ignoring The Circumstances In Which Such Cash Was Recorded. 2. Error In Additions Of Rs.82,96,610/- In Respect Of Provision Of Section 68 Of The Act. The Ao Made An Addition In Haste Without Completely Understanding The Facts Of The Case. This Addition Belies A Sense Of Proportion. A. Addition Of Rs.46,96,610/- Of Unsecured Loan Forwarded By Mrs. Sangeeta Sonigara: The Officer Erred In Appreciating The Fact That The Loan Could Have Been Given By The Said Person From Gifts Received Or Through Other Exempt Income Earned In The Past. Merely Because The Person Doesnt Not Have Sufficient Income In The Immediately Previous Years Does Not Invalidate The Genuineness Of The Unsecured Loan. B. Addition Of Rs.37,00,000/- Of Unsecured Loan Forwarded By Mr. Ganesh Nadha: The Said Person Is A Third Party. Unsecured

Section 68 of the Act. the AO made an addition in haste without completely understanding the facts of the case. This addition belies a sense of proportion. a. Addition of Rs.46,96,610/- of unsecured loan forwarded by Mrs. Sangeeta Sonigara: The officer erred in appreciating the fact that the loan could have been given by the said person

LATE PRATAPSINGH KARTARSINGH WALIA REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAR HEIR MRS. AMARJEETKAUR PRATAPSINGH WALIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer, The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submission by appearing in person or through authorized representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance

LATE PRATAPSINGH KARTARSINGH WALIA REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAR HEIR MRS. AMARJEETKAUR PRATAPSINGH WALIA ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer, The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submission by appearing in person or through authorized representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance