DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

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

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

1) and Section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment order under Section 153A. 21. In the instant case, the draft assessment order in 85 cases, i.e. for 85 assessment years placed before

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

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, 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

BILIDEVALAYA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA MURTHY,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, KUDAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.701/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, Vs The Income Tax Officer, S-7 Vinayak Apartment, Vaishyawada, Kudal Sawantwadi, Maharashtra-416510 Pan : Acgpb9237N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 01.03.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.1,35,52,006/- (Sundry Creditors Rs.41,42,506 & Unsecured Loans Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs.1,35,52,006/- (Sundry Creditors Rs.41,42,506 and Unsecured Loans Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy Rs.94,09,500) being additions u/s 68. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete

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

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

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and the Hon'ble\nKolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees\nCooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income\narising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot\nbe attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for\nexemption u/s.80P

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 :

1 above, the assessee submits that the notices of hearing u/s 250 issued by the CIT(A) were served on email id of the appellant and not by post, whereas the appellant had specifically chosen "No" for the option of receiving notices/communications over email as the appellant was not acquainted with using emails and therefore, there was a reasonable cause

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

1) were issued to the assessee to which the assessee furnished 2 the profit and loss account, balance sheet, bank statements, monthly cash sales, monthly cash deposits in bank etc. From the details so furnished, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown cash in hand to the tune of Rs.62,18,529/-. Further, the assessee made a cash

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

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

251 (1)(b) of the Act. Non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c); 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has heard the quantum appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, as per the section 275(1)(A), learned AO be directed to impose penalty based on the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

251 CUP TNMM (finished goods) 3. Purchase of Non-clonable ID tags, 24,73,743 Other TNMM reader and applicator Method 4. Sale of clinical supplies 18,45,660 Other TNMM Method 5. Lease of PVdC Coating Machine 8,75,00,000 CUP TNMM 6. Loan Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 7. Performance Guarantee Given Nil Other Other

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

251 CUP TNMM (finished goods) 3. Purchase of Non-clonable ID tags, 24,73,743 Other TNMM reader and applicator Method 4. Sale of clinical supplies 18,45,660 Other TNMM Method 5. Lease of PVdC Coating Machine 8,75,00,000 CUP TNMM 6. Loan Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 7. Performance Guarantee Given Nil Other Other