ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

253) wherein the subsidy is treated as revenue receipt. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) 2, Kolhapur be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant leave to add, alter, amend and modify the above grounds raised at the time of proceedings before the Hon. Tribunal. ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

253) wherein the subsidy is treated as revenue receipt. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) 2, Kolhapur be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant leave to add, alter, amend and modify the above grounds raised at the time of proceedings before the Hon. Tribunal. ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

253) wherein the subsidy is treated as revenue receipt. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) 2, Kolhapur be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant leave to add, alter, amend and modify the above grounds raised at the time of proceedings before the Hon. Tribunal. ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 33,85,80,176 14 9,02,79,805 8 4,67,15,104 7. Referring to the above, he submitted that in the subsequent submissions the assessee relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction vs. DCIT reported in 38 DTR 19 has explained to the Assessing Officer that

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. AKASH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

section 68 of the Act apply to the transactions under 8 scrutiny. Further, it is the suspicion of the Revenue that the shares are allotted to Kagliwals without receiving the funds by way of cash or cheque and against only the book entries. 13. However, on verification of the assessment order, we find the Assessing Officer

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

5 remuneration nor the manner of computing remuneration has been incorporated which is in violation of CBDT Circular No.739 dated 25.03.1996. During the course of video conference, he asked the AR to present his case in respect of proposed disallowance of remuneration of Rs.5,90,000/- paid to the partners. The AR of the assessee furnished the copy

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

253/- Deshmukh Hi Tech Irrigation Rs.48,319/- Rex Polyextrusion Ltd. Rs.21,24,830/- Total Rs.2,27,27,402/- The confirmations letter submitted from Rex Polyextusion Ltd. etc. and also subsequent payments made. As regards the addition of Rs.1,15,47,555/-, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of sundry creditors

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

253/- Deshmukh Hi Tech Irrigation Rs.48,319/- Rex Polyextrusion Ltd. Rs.21,24,830/- Total Rs.2,27,27,402/- The confirmations letter submitted from Rex Polyextusion Ltd. etc. and also subsequent payments made. As regards the addition of Rs.1,15,47,555/-, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of sundry creditors

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

5 Sangeeta B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 There is urgent need for having an effective preventive and punitive action in such matters to prevent recurrence of such instance. We recommend the following measures in this regard: i.) SEBI needs to have and effective monitoring mechanism to study such unusual rise of stock prices of companies while such a rise

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

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

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

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

253(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] challenges the DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1055582823(1) dt. 30/08/2023 passed u/s 250 by learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals-13, Pune [in short ‘CIT(A)’] anent to assessment year 2012-13 [in short ‘AY’] which in turn arisen out of assessment order dt. 12/04/2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

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

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

5% range as provided under the Proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 9 9. It is contended, inter-alia, that the A&M expenses was incurred by the appellant company for its own business purposes and in order to promote the sale of the products manufactured by the appellant company, no benefit had approved

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

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