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 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

68 of the Act. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the same are taxable under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The very fact that the assessee itself had offered to tax the credits in the succeeding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 goes to prove that

DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

68 of the Act. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the same are taxable under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The very fact that the assessee itself had offered to tax the credits in the succeeding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 goes to prove that

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

253 ISO and CIT Vs. Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah 120151 62 taxmann.com 325/235 Taxman 1 (Bombay HC) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand". Further the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain(supra) held that the manifold

SHRI VENKATESHWARA PANMASALA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Venkateshwara Panmasala Industries Pvt Ltd, 335, Sangli Kolhapur Byepass Road, Dharangutti Via Jaysingpur – 416 203. Pan: Aaccs5553P. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolhapur . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which Impugns First Appellate Order Dt. 06/03/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/ Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Emerged In Relation To & Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 24/11/2023 Passed By Ld. Assessment Unit, Nfac [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which impugns first appellate order dt. 06/03/2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)/ Ld. NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Act which emerged in relation to & out of assessment order dt. 24/11/2023 passed by Ld. Assessment Unit, NFAC [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] u/s 147 r.w.s 144B

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

253 of the Act. Assessee only took a alternate remedy to again make the proceedings u/s.250 of the Act alive and filed the appeal against the order u/s.250 of the Act passed by ld.CIT(A) on 24.04.2024 before this Tribunal with a delay of 268 days. Grievance of the assessee before this Tribunal is that ld.CIT(A) ought to have

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

253/- Shri. Khushiram Ram Kumar Pal 2 Shri. Ashok Meshram 44,21,804/- 31,613/- 3 Shri.Asim Haran Biswas 48,46,381/- 48,46,381/- 4 Gannon International 1,12,955/- 1,12,955/- 5 5 1,68,76,451/- 11,093/- GGS Designers Fabricators Pvt Ltd. 6 Guddu Singh 5,00,615/- Nil 7 Harshit Mondal

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

253( 1)( d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 15 February 2022 (received on 15 February 2022 via email) passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxi Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as 'the learned AO') under section 143(3) read with section

PRADIP POPATLAL KATARIYA,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 253(5) of the Act and also taking a justice oriented approach in the light of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC

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

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

253 (SC) and CIT Vs. Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah [2015] 62 taxmann.com 325/235 Taxman 1 (Bombay HC) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand". Further the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain(supra) held that the manifold

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

section 132(4), which delineates that the statement made by the assessee may or may not be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings. The nitty gritty of the matter is that though a statement made u/s 132(4) carries immense weight and works as an evidence, but the same is not conclusive in so far as the legal