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

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

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

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

SAVITA MITKARI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

68, ignoring the fact that\nThe appellant produced a proper Loan Confirmation Letter from Shri\nBansilal Pannalal Gundecha affirming the genuineness of the loan.\nThe lender's PAN and address proof are available on record, satisfying\nthe requirements of the Act.\nBank statements reflect the credit of 10,00,000 into the appellant's\naccount during the relevant financial year

JITENDRA NANASAHEB THORAT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2307/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, V Income Tax Officer, A-7, Chaitrapalavi Apartment, S Ward-2(4), Nashik. Ashok Marg, Near Bank Of Maharashtra, Behind Fame Cinema, Nashik – 422006. Pan: Afypt8886Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meema –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An 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.2011-12 Dated 28.07.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

68 of Rs.21,78,500 made by the A.O. by holding that the entire cash deposits made in bank accounts of the appellant are to be treated as unexplained cash credits without appreciating that the said cash deposits represented agricultural income of the appellant and is therefore, apparently unjustified on facts of the case and in law. 7] The learned

LATABAI VIJAY JADHAV,SHAHADA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DHULE CIRCLE, DHULE

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,750/-, the details of which have been given on pages 2 and 3 of the assessment order. The AO was not convinced with the details furnished by the assessee and made addition of Rs.62,18,528/- as unexplained income u/s.68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee could not prove the availability of huge cash on hand

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

section 68 are absent, the addition made is 9 prima facie unjustified. He submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC without understanding the evidence on record in a very cryptic order has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is not correct. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing

M/S. CAPSTONE SECURITIES ANALYSIS PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.251/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

68,43,110/-. Certain international transactions were reported by the assessee in Form No. 3CEB. The AO referred the matter of determination of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of such transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Vide order dated 18-01-2016, the TPO recommended transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.5,35,19,469/-. The AO passed the draft

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the 63[***]*65[Commissioner (Appeals)] shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or 67annul the assessment 68[***]; 69[(aa) in an appeal against the order of assessment in respect of which the proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SUNIL ASHER, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1289/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, V Sunil Asher, Ward-6(1), Pune. S B-602, Verde Residence Collection, Near Gurunanak Dairy, Kalyaninagar, Maharashtra – 411037. Pan: Acapa1980B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 18.04.2024 For The A.Y.2016-17, Emanating From Assessment Order U/Sec.144 Of The Act For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 16.12.2018. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act, By Accepting The Claim Of The Assessee That The Source Of The Investments Of Rs.5.87 Cr. Are Lifetime Accumulations & Savings Of The Assessee Made Out Of Earnings In Canada & Thailand, As Well As In India, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Any Supporting Documentary Evidences During The Assessment Proceedings Before The Ao. While Doing So, The Ld.Cit(A) Also Failed To Actually Examine Whether The Accumulations Claimed To Be Past Savings, Were Disclosed In The Itrs Filed For The Respective Years & Offered To Tax.

68 of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) admitted certain additional evidences as appearing in the order like copy of Foreign Inwards Remittance Certificate, Net Worth Certificate, Cash Flow Statement, Reconciliation Statement of personal assets. These documents were never filed by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Ld.CIT(A) has admitted these documents without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT

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, to the concept of taxation on revenue recognition as expressed in item no. 1 above, this notice may be treated as a notice in terms of section 251

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, to the concept of taxation on revenue recognition as expressed in item no. 1 above, this notice may be treated as a notice in terms of section 251

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

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

68, to the concept of taxation on\nrevenue recognition as expressed in item no. 1 above, this notice may be treated as\na notice in terms of section 251

VIJAY BABAN GUNJAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 12(4) PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

section 68 addition, the very addition be made under a different head runs contrary to the settled contours of his lower appellate jurisdiction as held in CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Union Tyers (1990) 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and CIT vs. M/s. Sadari Lal & Company (2001) 251

NALINI B PAWAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 914/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nalini Balasaheb Pawar, 32/1/1, Shree Mangal Society, Opp. Post Office, Dhankawadi, Pune – 411043 Pan: Aiupp7152Q . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2) Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2016-17 Is Assailed Against First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Dt. 20/06/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 30/12/2018 Passed U/S 144 By The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Pune [For Short ‘Ao’]

68 of Rs. 50,75,000/- in the order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts and circumstances. The Assessing Officer passed the order under section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 50,75,000/- though the loans are genuine and assesse is having all the documentary evidences

AMOL VIJAY KARNAWAT,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

68 of the Act. 2 Amol Vijay Karnawat 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observed that ld.CIT(A) without dealing with legal as well as on merits of the case has remitted the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer observing as follows : “6.1 I have carefully considered

SANJEEV D. SANDANSHIV, L/H. OF LATE SHRI DHARMA KAUTIK SANDANSHIV,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (CBI),, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68. The Ground of appeal is partly allowed.” Thus, the CIT(A) analyzed the cash deposits of Rs.38,18,457/- and cheque deposits of Rs.14 lakhs on one side and quantified the cash withdrawals of Rs.54,42,992/- on the other. Further, the CIT(A) quantified the peak credit of Rs.10,50,673/- after netting with the opening balance